Interesting. I took a look at your link. It states that that form is not for use in reporting VD but it sounds like the docs have a reasonably complete form to fill out. As long as the doctor fills in the occupation (and talent doesn’t lie about their true occupation and say they flip burgers or something for a living) the county can separate cases of VD by occupation. (Off subject but on the form) it is even more interesting that TB cases have to be reported within 24 hours. In Michigan (to my understanding) nowadays doctors just treat TB themselves without a report to the state. I wonder if CA still quarantines TB patients as well.

Here is the HIV report form for LA County: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dhsp/ReportCase/AdultHIV-AIDSCaseReportForm.pdf

Here is the non-HIV VD reporting forms: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/dhsp/ReportCase/STD_CMR.pdf

When a person tests positive for an Std it is reported to the county health department on what is called a Morbitity Report. That report contains a space for ‘occupation.’ They are sorted by occupation. AIM also tested ‘civilians’ and the argument that the county didnt know if a person worked in porn has been used for a long time. Of course, as usual, the people in the industry making this argument are uninformted as to the FACTS of what gets reported. The other argument is that the numbers are artificially high because talent would retest too soon after being medicated and get a false positive which was re-reported. That too is a lie, the county did not count any tests that was less than 30 days old on the same person.

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/reports/cmr-h-794.pdf

It would be interesting to have the porn-only VD results from West Oaks Urgent Care for sure. If I understand correctly that is where Dr. Riggs treats porn stars all day (I could have the clinic wrong, though). However, even Dr. Riggs’ clinic treats many non-porn performers so unless the results are sorted by occupation they would be useless.

Also I did take a look at West Oaks’ website, it says they have two clinics within five miles of each other. I wonder why, they could save a lot of money by having one large clinic in the area rather than two small ones.

AIM’s numbers are correct, they are just incomplete, because the same patients that went to AIM also went to other clinics for the same ailments.
And the county’s stats are based on the assumption that Sharon Mitchell was telling the truth when she said they tested 2500-3000 a month, when it was really about 1000.

But you fundamentally misunderstand the study that was done. It wasnt about the rate of stds, it was about how many stds are missed becuase AIM only did urine tests. The study showed that a high percentage ofthe infections found in this study would have been missed by AIM because AIM did not test orally or analy. If those same peoplewho went to West Oaks hadgone to AIM, a large number of them would have recieved negative test results, and gone right on working while infectedin the throat and anus. This was the purpose of the study, to show how many stds the AIM system MISSED on a regular basis.

“The study says 69% had worked in the last 30 days,,,that means they either had a clean AIM test, or worked without an AIM test. ”

The study by Cristina Rodriguez-Hart never mentions AIM. This is either a misread on your part or just pure speculation. As you previously noted, there are other testing facilities (West Oaks Urgent Care, Tarzana Treatment Center, Coldwater Community Clinic, etc).

—–

“Why would the study be invalid because it wass at west oaks?”

You need to reread what I wrote. I stated “… if true then that would completely invalidate the “Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing of Adult Film Performers: Is Disease Being Missed?” study.” The invalidity of the study has nothing to do with the facility, but rather with the reasons why the patients in the study went there. I’ll quote what BT wrote at http://www.mikesouth.com/mikesouth-exclusives/an-interview-with-the-principle-author-of-the-most-recent-std-study-6812/comment-page-1/#comment-6645 :

“If you study the incident rate of people with cancer who go to Sloan Kettering, you’ll find that it’s very high because Sloan Kettering treats only cancer. But, if you study the incident rate of cancer among people in a community who go to a particular clinic that treats a wide variety of medical concerns, you’ll get a different look that is more representative of the rate in that population.”

So if, as you suggest, performers went there because they suspected they really had an STD, then the results of that study would be invalid because we have no way of knowing if it truly represented the general porn performer population.

—-

“The numbers from AIM are very reliable, and AIM reported THOUSANDS of stds, and those were only Gonnorrhea and chlamydia, THOUSANDS!!!!”

I don’t know what THOUSANDS!!!! really means to you, but here are the numbers from 2004 to 2009 : “2,396 cases of Chlamydia (CT), 1389 cases of gonorrhea (GC), and five syphilis cases among AFI performers”. Source : http://file.lacounty.gov/bc/q3_2009/cms1_137588.pdf

Make up your mind. Either the AIM numbers are reliable or they’re not. You can’t have it both ways. If they are reliable, then you need to accept the LA County numbers : “AFI performers experience significantly higher rates of infection (20%) than the general public (2.4%)

—–

“Nice try d0125 but again, another epci failure.”

No, actually your complete lack of knowledge about statistics, testing methodologies, or how to construct a logical argument mark you as the epic failure.

A large focus of the study was, “Are diseases being missed.” This is because AIM only did urine tests, and not throat or anal swabs. And the results showed a very high rate of throat and anal disease that would not be detected by the AIM urine test.

Dont you think it is ridiculous that the industry still does not test for oral or anal gonnorhea or chlamydia, bothe of which can remain unsymptomatic for a long period of time.

Try as you might d0125, the idnustry is a cesspool, AIM proved it, this study proves it. The THOUSANDS of positive std reports sent to the county by AIM are very reliable.

Dr Riggs and West Oaks Urgent Care are right on the very first page. Even you fellow industry aplogist Mark Fatboy Kernes acknowlegded this right here on this site, and on LIB.

The study says 69% had worked in the last 30 days,,,that means they either had a clean AIM test, or worked without an AIM test.

The study name Dr Riggs, and on the first page names West Oaks Urgent care.

Why would the study be invalid because it wass at west oaks. If anything is invalid it is the industries own claims that their testing program works, after all, look at how many are going outside the established program.

And I jusst love the constant industry line about getting the disease on or off set. The FACT is, once you have the disease you bring it with you every time you go to work, and you expose every person you work with.

Also, the report itself outlines the exact methodology of how the participants were selected, and the participants chosen.

The numbers from AIM are very reliable, and AIM reported THOUSANDS of stds, and those were only Gonnorrhea and chlamydia, THOUSANDS!!!!

What might be invalid is AIM’s stats, because their patients were going elsewhere to get tested and treated before coming in for their :”industry” tests at AIM. If all the people who constantly went elsewhere had always gone to AIM thoose THOUSANDS of stds that AIM did report to the county would even be higher.

Nice try d0125but again, another epci failure. The industry has the stats, they just dont want to give them out, for obvious reasons.

@Jilted :

“The industry has all the stats they need. They have YEARS of testing, yet they refuse to put out their own stats, and I contend it is because those stats would prove the industry is a cesspool of stds. If the industry’s own stats showed how low the rate is they would have no problem making those stats public.”

This may very well be true, but without proof it’s just speculation on your part. Maybe the industry simply did not want to be burdened with publishing any statistics which they legally were not obligated to do. Maybe their attorneys advised against it for privacy reasons or other reasons unknown. Truth is, we just don’t know.

—–

“In this study, the majority of the participants were within the 30 day testing period of the industry, that is, they had clean tests from AIM on the day they went to West Oaks. … THEY HAD CLEAN AIM TESTS ON THE DAY THEY WENT TO WEST OAKS.”

No, that is not correct. The report states “most performers (69%) had recently worked in an adult film production within the past 30 days” There is no mention of AIM or when they performed within that 30 day period. So we have no way of knowing if they really had an STD (despite having a clean STD result from their previous test) or if they acquired the STD during one of their shoots within that 30 day period.

—–

“The study was done as West Oaks Urgent Care, which begs the question, why are performers going to West Oaks for std testing,,,,,,is it because they are just going to keep working with their clean AIM test, when they highly suspect that they have an infection?”

Again, pure speculation on your part. However, if true then that would completely invalidate the “Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing of Adult Film Performers: Is Disease Being Missed?” study.

—–

If you don’t like the numbers reported by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health because you feel crucial data is missing, then OK. However, you can’t adjust the figures up (or down) based on speculation. The only thing you can conclude is that we don’t have any reliable numbers.

d0125, you wrote,”1100 performers per month by AIM is more that sufficient for statistical validity” You are 100% correct, so why did they never report on the rate of infection? The TRUTH about the true rate of disease is something the industry fears more than anything. If AIM’s stas proved a low rate they would have released them every month, but they never did, because the truth would not be kind to the industry.