Study on Performers and STDs to Be Presented To The CDC Tomorrow

This is why the condom law will pass, it’s also why you wont be able to hide from it by moving out of California.  This study was presented today at  the CDC at the 2014 STD Prevention Conference here in Atlanta.  THIS is why Michael Weinstein makes 400K a year and Diane Duke should be working in fast food.  Where is the industry’s study to contradict this? the fools at The FSC will say the study is flawed but where is their better study?  We all know it doesn’t exist and we all know it doesn’t exist because if it were done correctly it wouldn’t likely contradict the other studies to any notable degree.

performer std study

performer std study 2


105540cookie-checkStudy on Performers and STDs to Be Presented To The CDC Tomorrow

Study on Performers and STDs to Be Presented To The CDC Tomorrow

Share This

55 Responses

  1. And where did said data come from? Are these 366 active performers? Current in the LA talent pool? I’m sorry but I just question the accuracy of the data without knowing how they came about it.

  2. To clarify a few things. Riggs and Pacheco means West Oaks Urgent Care, and Talent Testing Service.
    For years West Oaks has been the place the industry uses for ‘those things we dont like to talk about’ that happen to performers, like anal tears, serious infections in the eyes, throat, and especially the ATM infections. THE TRUTH ABOUT WEST OAKS IS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE INDUSTRY.(the dirtly little secret isnt so secret anymore)

    I wonder if the industry attack dogs are going to go after W.O. and TTS for working with AHF? Will there be a call to boycott these places, after all, the industry cant have the little secrets getting out now can they?

    How many of these 366 performer signed the no condom petition, which by one report is now up to 700 performers,,,,,LO effing L.

  3. Perhaps you have a little trouble reading, but it says pretty clearly that 293 of the 366 interviewed had worked in porn in the last 30 days. And the study was conducted at 2 well known porn industry clinics.

    Did you even read what is posted here befrore insinuating that the information is not accurate?

    Now that you know that it came from 2 industry clinics does that clarify things for you?

  4. I’m clearly not seeing the same thing as you. From what I can tell it says 366 performers but it doesn’t say where they come from. LA? Florida? Atlanta? Alaska? Made up and pulled out of their ass?

  5. What the fuck is the difference what state they come from? They went to either West Oaks or TTS.

    Made up and pulled out of their asses,,,like the industry’s claim that porn workers are safer than the general public,,,,like the so called 700 performers who signed a petition, talk about pulled out of someones ass.

    this study was conducted by professionals in these fields of acedemic research, and known and accepted clinical methodologies were used to conduct the study. As a typical industry apologist I see you attack and question the methods, because you cant attack what the results show,

    The industry has YEARS AND YEARS of testing information, conducted by the industry themselves, yet the industry refuses to publish their own findings,,why do you think they wont release their own years of information if it could refute these findings,,,,simple, they dont refute these findings, they confirm them, and as the person who personally handled tens of thousands of industry tests myself, I can say without any doubt that these numbers are much closer to accurate than ANYTHING the industry has ever put forward.

  6. @removed account

    This would be the UCLA study that had its author present and standing at the CA ASM committee against APAC who said we got a guy at Johns Hopkins who says the data is flawed. In other words, the CA assembly and CDC believe the data over the guy who got paid to say it was no good.

    Maybe if the FSC spent some money on actual data instead of paying for academics to pick apart the study methodology they would have better success? Like they say…might not be perfect but it beats a blank.

  7. @removedaccount

    What do you have to stand against it? Want to tell us the public has higher rates? Cuz I could really use a good belly laugh today.

    The way porn STI test reporting works…performers have never been segregated from the public, the gate the FSC loves to shout from rooftops about is about as effective as the first three twigs in a beaver damn to stop the flow of water.

    Porn performers are in every city across the nation and using patients who self-reported having performed in the past thirty days is better than bullshit arguments that porn is safer than the local pub. If porn were really safer than the public or local pub FSC would have the guy from Johns Hopkins standing up at the California Legislature spouting numbers vs APAC saying he says…lol nobody cares what he says about the methodology unless he uses ACTUAL data to prove the methodology flaws. Same thing happened with OSHA and the guy from Minnesota who says LACPH and CDC are flawed but didn’t offer anything concrete to show the flaw.

    Btw red cars are more dangerous than white cars…don’t believe me compare insurance rates for the same make & model with different color. Might not make sense but there is actual data to back that up based on # speeding tickets, at fault accidents etc. so when you have something beyond I want to know where it came from to abandon my delusions…I might not think you’re delusional.

  8. @removed account

    Ever hear of footnotes? Or PowerPoint summary?

    The pretty PowerPoint slides every study ends in has volumes of data to back it up for folks who are too busy to read the fine print. Ask FSC or Mike Stabile for the study data they keep saying is flawed…maybe ask how much they paid the Johns Hopkins guy to write up his report refuting the methodology. Btw barter value counts too.

  9. So, how exactly does the performer data get collected?
    Do the performers fill out a form to answer the questions such as coerced sex, etc. and then a release for the required medical info.?

    If they have a specific number of performers I would assume they didn’t just take random sample performers… Not necessarily for the “medical” data, but the more “personal” data.

  10. Guys, this argument is a little silly. As LurkingReader points out, the statistics were provided by two facilities in California. So ….. even if the performers are from Alaska, they traveled to California to be tested. Second, the average years in the industry is 3 and the average number of scenes performed was 80, or an average of roughly one scene every two weeks. If you consider that there were 356 performers, that’s 9,493 scenes a year. Where else but California can 356 individuals engage in 9,493 sex acts on camera in a year, or one individual perform in a scene every other week on average?

  11. @reba,
    Excuseme if I am reading this wrong, but where did you get the ridiculous notion that the general public has an expotentially higher rate of stds? I defy you to show one single shred of evidence of any kind to support that statement, just one single tiny shred.

    The FSC doesnt need to ask for any independent studies, The insutry has YEARS of statistics of their own. CET and TTS could release their stats, AIM could have released stats, but the dont, because the truth sinks them faster than the Titanic.

    Why do you think these performers need to be tested every month or 14 days,,,,,,BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH DISEASE GOING AROUND!!!! If the std rates were as low as the FSC claims there would not be a need to increase the testing protocols. And the industry still says they do a FULL PANEL but they dont test orally and rectally, a total fucking joke in and of itself.

    The general public has an expotenially higherrate of stds(28% in this study) than the porn world,,,,now I have officially heard it all. Laughable at best, scary at worst, because people actually believe it.

    Reba, on what do you base this statement?


    And check out the rate of illegal drug use.
    And another victory for AHF, and Weistien, is the LA County Health Dept, civilian oversite committee. It never even got to a vote, the council passed it and the mayor took no action, making it the law,

    But hasnt the industry been telling us that Weinstien is done, and all the petitions to have him removed, Yet here he is, still kicking your asses from one end of the valley to the other. I cant wait till he pulls out the real aces up his sleeve.

    Porners, all your preaching to the choir has accomplished absolutely NOTHING. Can hardly wait to see the upcoming feeble attempts to discredit this well documented, scientifically conducted survey. Looks like you will have to call all these performers liars when they filled out those questionaires. Look at the list of professionals who conducted this survey,,,look at their credentials,,,,then look at the credentials of those who will tell you its a flawed survey.

    ps,,,does anyone have a link to the John Hopkins response to the last survey,,,,,which results are very close to this survey,,,,which kind of gives you a clue as to the accuracy of two independent surveys reaching nearly the same conclusions.

  13. @Lacey

    Not sure but my guess is this is the study I noticed on TTS site. Mike used comments about it as a post a few months back. Even if it’s not that study the way it works is the same.

    Medical studies and clinical trials usually exchange services for use of standard reported data with personal identifiers removed. To get the additional personal data they often offer token payment to fill out questionnaire survey…usually $20-50 depending on how long survey is. The questions are simple and limited to multiple choice responses (uncharted territory often has ‘other’ option with text box for future survey use) Studies often use NGO sponsorship to supplement public funding as a way of expanding the scope and purpose of data gathering.

    Looking at the Poster graphics I can make the following statements to expand on Jilted’s info re clinic (provider) info. The study was a co-operative effort and likely used grant funding from both public funds and AHF. The AHF logo is quiet way of showing their sponsorship, Kerndt is LACPH and using the study to expand on previous studies. Without looking at actual study documentation I have no way of knowing if (or what percentages) of local, state or federal funding was used for medical public health and labor portions or what (if any) academic funds were tossed in with AHF sponsorship.

    This study is a direct result of FSC (industry) efforts against Cal/OSHA and anticipated their legislative (talking points) arguments to checkmate them with facts over theory. The timing and presentation of this study at CDC conference where all the medical and labor organizations OSHA relies on for policy guidance trumps the industry standard of woe is me media campaigns.

    OSHA, medical & Labor agencies/organizations are going to take this data and compare for lost work/wage opportunity based on time/treatment costs for GC & CT to other high risk industries. Nina Hartley did a wonderful write up using labor stats for workplace death comparisons focusing on no onset HIV transmission …this study has actual data that will be used to compare the number of days workers miss work for risks associated with their jobs regardless of whether it happened on/off the job. IG construction or trash collector back injuries without looking at WC submission rates.

    The comparisons will be written up into nice reports and OSHA will use them to justify and modify OPIM draft policy before opening it to public comment. Meanwhile the constitutional challenges are becoming narrower and the industry hasn’t presented an adequate or effective alternative to preserve barrier free production options.

    Considering the prevalence of adult film production workers who advocate decriminalizing sex work (prostitution) it’s surprising that they haven’t invested in distinguishing the industry as haute cuisine vs roadside food carts.

  14. @jilted

    Do you know if the UCLA study and this one used separate sources for the overlapping data?

    Either way it won’t make a difference cuz you can bet wonks behind both studies also did numbers for the overall FSC approved testing panels even breaking it down and footnoting the varied panels during the study timeframe as an ace up their sleeve. It’s always fun when one side comes armed with reports like the Minnesota and Johns Hopkins but won’t present numbers for data they have at hand…

    PASS has lovely scarlet x in combination with total number performers who tested in given time period, number who retested, frequency percentages and number who make James Deen Claim to no scarlet check marks would easily present apples to apples comparison.

    Isn’t it amazing that the very stuff this Johns Hopkins guy is using to refute UCLA methodology is actually available to him yet he doesn’t use it? Btw it’s safe to say the UCLA study that includes the number of re-infections not only tracked number of total participants but number and frequency of retesting which can easily be compared to any STD testing center across the USA that accepts local, state or federal funding…probably for less than it cost FSC to buy methodology reports.

    Just like Mike Kulich does content compilations researchers compile data. Every medical provider has software that removes personal identifiers yet retains comparative data. So why hasn’t the FSC commissioned studies that compare the rates of infection per total tested participants, # and frequency retesting and surveyed demographics for polyamory with and without paid sex work?

  15. @Reba

    My guess is HIV stats were also collected but ignored on studies focused reporting. These studies are direct contradictions of the FSC claim to no onset transmission for a decade.

    Agree the FSC should have commissioned independent studies of non-affiliated STD testing facilities for comparison to the data collected by PASS to back up their claims that porn is safer than the local pub.

  16. @BT

    Thanks for kudos but must pass them onto Jilted who identified the facilities along with Rigg & Pacheco roles.

  17. @Reba

    You didn’t miss it…comparisons to the general public have nothing to do with occupational risks which was the focus of these studies. These studies are all about defining and modifying OSHA (labor) policy where any industry claims of ‘exponentially higher’ general public std rates have been debunked by so many different medical organizations that OSHA not only refused to pay for the epidemiologist FSC wanted on board but last summer when the FSC finally offered to pay their guy OSHA said don’t bother, he can’t refute ten years of verified epidemiology data.

    When Planned Parenthood stood for AB 1576 in the labor committee It had to be obvious the jig was up. Doesn’t matter how loud Mark Kernes yells at folks to wake up when PP agrees with government over any/all attempts by Duke to have them stay silent if they couldn’t stand with her.

  18. The study had a limited budget. They were offering testing AND treatment for participants, there is no way the budget would have covered treatment had someone tested positive for HIV. Simple as that.

    And no surprise to anybody, the AVN response to this is again one of the funniest things I have ever read. AVN, you never fail to rise above the lowest possible level of what can only jokinly be called journalism.

  19. I must say there are a few statistics on there that were interesting… like the number of performers admitting to not using condoms off-set was kinda surprising.

    Well, not really “surprising.” But, you know what I mean…

  20. The old AIM trick,,,,we did 3000 tests last month,,,except that was 1000 performers with 3 tests each(gonn,chlam,HIV)

    The old AIM trick,,,we only had 100 positives out of 3000 tests, a 3% rate,,,,,but it was actually 100 out of 1000 patients or 10% of the patients being positive.

    Stats and numbers can be spun just like anything else.

    The industry didnt increase the testing because they are so clean, they increased the testing because of the astronomical high rate of stds on an ongoing basis,,,which their own testing program proves beyond any and all doubt, which is why they will never release their own stats. There is just no way to spin their own stats that could posibly point to anything other than the industry being a cesspool of std’s.

  21. The AVN response was typical. The same shit they’ve been saying forever…

    But, the one point that does rather confuse me is why they’re calling West Oaks a “testing facility?”

    We all know its “purpose” and how it fits into the system, but do performers actually ever get tested there? I’m a little confused surrounding the role it plays in regards to this report?

    But, you gotta love the “the gay side of the industry mainly uses condoms and tests on a limited voluntary basis” and then right behind it is “these statistics are inadequate because gay performers were included.” Wtf?

    I also like how they think AHF took a shot at Hartley in regards to “condom chaffing.”
    Let’s see, the report includes statistics on TP, DP, fisting, etc. And they expect everyone to start discussing vaginal irritation? I would think shoving 3 cocks up your ass at the same time might cause a little irritation too? Do they want AHF to release a statement on that as well?

    “Well, you know, shoving 3 dicks up your ass could possibly cause a little irritation so you may not want to do that… you could possibly injure your rectum.”

    A fucking condom isn’t going to change the fact that 3 dicks up your ass could possibly rip your asshole out???

    Fucking DUH????????

  22. @jilted

    Do you know if study releases included data for non-study services received at facility?

    IG I was in Brigham Women’s study for cancer survival, they paid for ten years of f/u radiology and study specific blood work but release allowed them access to all diagnostic results for future studies use..related conditions study among others.

  23. I’m sorry but again who are these performers? I just am not buying it. I’m not saying I know every porn star in LA but I know a good number of them and not a single one of them ever recall being asked to participate in any kind of survey like this.

    So I’m sorry but I just don’t see this survey as truly valid unless they can clarify a few things such as who the people are. Are they straight or gay or ts? Are they from the LA market? If so I find that hard to believe because I’ve yet to find a single female who ever been asked.

  24. AVN article is essentially kernes regurgitating selected portions of Johns Hopkins methodology critique report. What’s hysterical is that policy folks like me actually read these book length reports without routinely spewing our beverages from our noses when we see stuff like Wikipedia footnoted or ‘peer reviewed’ up against the big dogs.

    Sad but true FSC has been relying on papers like what Kernes regurgitated to argue study methodology in courts for many years yet haven’t offered any contrasting data. To make my point about standard woe is me media campaign…some bright scholar decided it was time to let Planned Parenthood know how pissed they are by joining ranks with anti-abortion crowd using outrageous scare tactic headline saying PP promotes dangerous sex to teens and teaches BDSM. Well folks, local PP might hear about that article but it won’t stop them from standing up front and center come June 25 and telling senate committee…so & so here for PP xxx chapter in support of AB1576…might even piss off someone up the tree enough to write an amicus brief against the industry…hothead gamesmanship at its best!

  25. @Lacey

    Gotta love FSC LGBT stance…equality…make gay wedding cakes but don’t tell us we can’t use different protocols based on sexual orientation. Even better are the gay performers they get to show up front and center to push their agenda.

  26. @jilted

    Totally on board with data spin…very curious as to why this Johns Hopkins guy didn’t use the data available to FSC to show how flawed UCLA methodology was against the proper study protocol he advocated.

  27. @removedaccount

    Let’s play….

    Kernes regurgitation of Johns Hopkins paper says…only TTS is approved testing facility so West Oaks data shouldn’t be included or should be invalidated because it’s skewed with performers who knew they were diseased and only went there for treatment…ok I’ll get on that page

    How did they know they had GC & CT…guys might have known when it hurt to piss but what about the females?

    The fact that you didn’t know about the survey is likely due to the fact that FSC didn’t support it and you obviously didn’t read their approved provider TTS website news page, sorry if you missed out on the 40 bucks plus no cost GC/CT testing and treatment.

    Now explain why 366 people would identify themselves as porn participants at West oaks & TTS when…
    1. Neither place is set up to get them paid porn work
    2. 40 bucks wouldn’t cover the rest of the panel they needed to work
    3. You’re in porn and didn’t know about the study but think folks who don’t do porn not only found out about it but decided to lie and say they did for 40 bucks?
    4. What does gay or straight matter? Do you think a condom stopped the CT & GC at the Imaginary FSC STD gate so it didn’t get onset?
    5. Want valid….ask FSC to analyze PASS for the same data…I’ll even ask the study author to limit data to the 196 never used condom and 70 sometimes for those 266 tossing not only the 18 assumed gay (always condom) but the unknown 82 others….let’s see how comparing apples to apples really works to hold up theory that general public is exponentially more risky for STD than porn performers.

  28. @removed,
    Just curious, do you ever find anything the FSC says hard to believe.I mean they have never offered on single study of any kind, even though they have YEARS of data, to refute any of these studies.

    Are you suggesting that this study is a fraud, that West Oaks and TTS, UCLA, and USC are making this up. AIM did several surveys like this over the years, I helped compile the results, which of course were never released simply because they didnt ake the industrylook too good.

    Are suggesting this is a fraud? You have no problem making these insunuations, but your silence on what the results show is very telling. When you cant attack the message, go after the messanger, a typical idnsutry standard operating procedure. You fool no one.

  29. Again, when you cant attack the message you go after the messanger. Just like they are trying to go after Weinstien with their petitions and all, yet he’s still there, kicking ass from one end of the valley to the other.
    The porn industry has yet to realize that the attack methods used by the likes of those guys on that other site might work against some little girl right off the bus, but to guys like Weinstien their tactics are nothing more than a slight annoyance. The porn industry has been bullshiting themselves for so long that some of them actually believe thier own crap. Keep on preaching to the choir Fatboy.

  30. @lacey

    Didn’t see OFF SET condom use on the poster. The number that stands out for me is 1-4 off set partners in contrast with 78 reports of exchanging drugs/$ for sex outside work. Further surprised that FSC barkers haven’t jumped on that 23% off set drug/$ exchange to make direct correlation claims to 24% who tested positive.

  31. @j.r.wolfe

    Would never insult QSR industry nor would they take offense at haute cuisine efforts to distinguish itself from roadside food carts especially when many haute cuisine establishments use roadside food carts at food festivals and catering events. 🙂

  32. Under past sexual partners for last 3 months (NOT including on-set partners)

    201 stated they never use condoms off-set (out of a total 366)
    Even more stated they only use condoms occasionally…

    That’s well more than 1/2 having unprotected sex OUTSIDE of the talent pool.
    Obviously, NOT surprising. BUT, the entire testing system revolves around performers practicing safe sex off-set so how is the testing system supposed to work again????

  33. “How did they know they had GC & CT…guys might have known when it hurt to piss but what about the females?”

    ^See, this is the part I don’t get?
    Why and/or how would they just show up to West Oaks for treatment unless they knew they were infected?
    All it really says is that if you “develop an issue” that’s obvious then go over to West Oaks & get away from the PASS testing system until you’re clean? I guess that’s the purpose of West Oaks?

    So, what if a performer starts feeling sick and goes to West Oaks where they confirm, say an HIV+ diagnosis, then the FSC and PASS would never know a performer was even infected… say their on-screen partner felt sick as well and went directly to West Oaks thereby bypassing the FSC/PASS all together… the infected performers & the doctor contact 1st & 2nd gens.

    Well, that would qualify as no on-set transmission just because neither of them were tested at a PASS facility, even though both performers knew they had just worked together on-set.

    It’s not like they’re going to hold a press conference letting the industry know they’re +.

    There are so many ways to get around the whole “No on-set transmission” argument that it makes the claim hard to take seriously… then you add in the whole Stagliano calling Bay with her test results and it’s just straight up insulting that the public is supposed to buy this shit.

    It’s kinda like “Yeah, ok, no on-set transmission…. blah, blah, blah…” while laughing to yourself.

  34. Tyvm…hadn’t visited link in jilted comment

    Well it’s this way….porn says we are unique workplace regulations don’t apply but were gonna pretend we have a system for workplace safety that includes regulating non-work activities.

  35. @lacey

    Description about using west oaks to skirt pass is exactly why I tend to believe AHF about forth and fifth mystery performers last year…anyone with half a brain and concerns that they didn’t dodge the bullet this time would have been stupid to show up at a PASS facility in the middle of that mess. Outside folks in direct line of liability risk no one really cares who leaked test info but plenty care that it happened and don’t care to chance it happening to them too.

  36. Thank you, Dr. Riggs!!!!! I quit acting due to the sudden prevelance of STD’s originating FROM WORK! I saw actors ON SET with OBVIOUS infections! I was told by producers that I should work even if I thought I might have caught ‘something’ because, and I QUOTE,,, “It’s the risk that she takes!” Well, you bastards,,, if it’s the risk SHE takes then aren’t you telling me that it is also the risk I take? Thank you Isadore Hall!!! Thank you Michael Weinstein!!! Oh, and anyone who thinks performers are ‘expendable’ can kiss my ass!

  37. Gay or straight is relatively insignificant, since 75% of the participants are female. It’s only significance would be if the 24% who tested positive for gonorrhea and/or chlamydia were made up entirely of gay men or TS performers who never wore condoms – but since at least some of the non-female participants were probably straight men, you have to have a very unusual set of circumstances. The large percentage of women says that some segment of those with STDs were female. Since its pretty tough to pass on an STD via girl-on-girl sex, even if some of the women are gay in their personal lives, they probably got an STD through male/female sex.

  38. @Nick East. Thank you for the really good performences that
    you did when you can and could do them. And good luck with
    you gas station attendant career, Nick. You ain’t missing anything
    anymore. Its all crap out there today anyways.

  39. Mike explain to us all. With all the shoots that you do for your
    productions. You never had any talent coming back positive
    for anything? So does the ESP testing system work that you have?
    You should capitalize and market that. Hell that’s a lot of money you could make.

  40. The surprise for me as far illegal drugs goes is how low the figures are. The study says 58.7 percent of performers use marijuana but I don’t consider that to be a hard drug. Many times when someone says that another person does drugs, he or she is not even thinking of Marijuana. Marijuana is much more socially accepted then it used to be. This study also says Cocaine is used by 20 percent and Methamphetamine by 5 percent. One of the things to keep in mind is that these figures include both casual and frequent users (one person may do something once a month and another person may be a daily user).

  41. No single study can ever be all inclusive but it’s a disappointment to not see alcohol listed to see if marijuana number is a reflection of legalization or use as an alternative to alcohol. Aside from the growing trend of marijuana use the other numbers seem like they might apply to any major US city without regard for regional differences.


    Here’s that John Hopkins study regarding the last survery. As usual the industry never questions the methodologies used in any report that seems favorable to them, while automaticl dismissing any negative report as ‘flawed.’ But lets take a very close look at page 7 of this report.

    There is a graph on this page created by the author based on numbers that he says “Application of the CDC methodology calculating period prevelance to the AFI chlamydia gonnorhea and chlamydia data I RECIEVED for years 2004-2010, yeilds the following prevalence estimates.(then there is a box of stats)

    So exactly what does “Data I recieved” mean, and who did it come from, who complied that data, and what methods were used to compile that data? (now, remember my post the other day about the old AIM trick,,,”we did 3000 tests last month,,,but really on tested 1000 people) Dr. Mayer here then does the same thing, using the number of tests, not the number of patients as his denominator.
    Lets make it simple for y’all, using nice easy numbers and just gonn/chlam. 100 performers get tested 12 times a year, . Thats 1200 tests. And during the entire course of the year lets say 5 of these 100 people every month test positive for one os the diseases. At the end of the year that means 70 of the 100 people caught an std, 70%…..But if you say 70 out of 1200 thats a much lower percentage.

    How come nobody in the industry questioned where Dr. Mayers numbers came from. Every month, because my lab systems were able to compile stats much easier than AIM,,,I would put together a spreadsheet of stats,,broken down by gender, multiple tested patients, previous positive results(to track those at high risk), and myriad of other criteria. To say the least, I have no clue where he got these numbers, and quite frankly I doubt anyone whoever spouted their support for this report knows where they came from either.

    Like the old saying goes, when the numbers don’t fit your need, find numbers that do.

    The author also makes the statement about the general public no testing as frequently as porn performers. Of course they dont, because the general public rarely has near the number of unprotected sexual contacts as porn performers either. It only makes sense that an educated adult who chooses to have dozens, if not more, unprotected sexual contacts in such short periods of time would get tested more often. ONLY IN PORN

    Simple question, Kernes, Ackworth,Stabile, Bueller,,where did the numbers that Mayer says “I recieved” come from, and what methodology was used to compile those numbers?

  43. PS,,,,jake is jilted,,,I did not know that “Jake” had logged onto my laptop this morning, sorry if that caused any confusion. I tried to edit the comment and post it under jilted but the time limit to edit comments had expired.,

    And before tha Kazoo goes crazy with a conspiracy theory here just let me ad that I made the same mistake a few times when Gene Ross was printing my articles on Adultfyi about 10 months ago, several times calling me “The Samuri” and some other name that I cant recall right now. So Rob, just remember, alot of the things you have ragged on me about here,,,your buddy Gene had been printing my stuff for quite a while, since your show has been on the air, and you never had any problem with it them.
    PS,,,Rob, you show today hit some great points, well done,,,except for that part about wanting to put a bullet through my head.

  44. @jilted

    Lol…OIP was a dead giveaway 😉

    Saw this which is why I lmao about Kernes using a report with no data to refute data making its way through standard process.

    Btw…if data has no verifiable source…it isn’t data and can’t refute or debunk jack shit.

Leave a Reply