Why Even Have Testing

The latest HIV nonscare is just so much BS.  Im gonna keep this short and sweet….nobody is following the moratorium and why would they, unless you have been under a rock for the last couple of years you know that there are HIV positive performers currently working in the biz…hell Eric over at the FSC ADVOCATES this practice…as long as your viral load is below the testing levels nobody seems to care anymore if you work….I know for sure of two HIV positive performers currently working regularly in straight porn, additionally there’s an HIV Positive company owner who regularly has unprotected sex with porn girls.  Why do we suddenly care that someone has tested positive and even call a moratorium?  Nobody listens to your moratorium because HIV positive performers in porn is no big deal anymore….Chlamydia, Gonorrhea and other STDs are rampant in the biz, it’s become the cesspool of STDs that the general public has always thought it is….Hint to FSC thanks to your own attitude about HIV in porn nobody gives a fuck about it anymore…or your fucking moratorium.  There are euro performers who will not work in US porn because of our poor testing proceedures…they are the smart ones….

281290cookie-checkWhy Even Have Testing

Why Even Have Testing

Share This

8 Responses

  1. Definitely time for FSC to review their testing protocols.

    Aptima is great at early detection of newly acquired HIV but it doesn’t report suppressed HIV. That is a big issue to performers. FSC is sticking their head in the sand when it comes to the conflict in their production testing protocols and respecting performers right to define their risk levels. without being dismissed or belittled because they’re not okay with a test that says a POZ performer had a suppressed viral load their test day.

    FSC advocacy to decriminalize non-disclosure should be extended to respecting HIV negative performer rights to define their own risk level. FSC needs to be out front to end the shaming and derogatory belittling derisive responses to HIV- performer concerns. U=U comebacks ignore the industry history of rampant use of prophylactic drugs to beat the system and ensure a paycheck.

    HIV can be fully suppressed in four weeks or less from a new diagnosis with the highest and most transmittable viral loads. U=U data are applicable only to study participants who were monitored through the study to ensure they were taking meds
    consistently. Study meds and testing were provided free of charge without any real world obstacles to access or replacement in case of loss or theft.

    No published data is available to address questions of how long it takes for viral loads to rise to transmissible levels because there are too many variables. For the purposes of medical treatment Viral Load testing is done two to four times a year. PASS does not allow performers to check history of viral suppression or distinguish a high viral load ‘scarlet x’ from other tested STD….an invitation to pass off inconsistent HIV medicine compliance as something else.

    Telling HIV neg to take PrEP at their own expense to address risk concerns ignores limitations of PrEP with respect to vaginal flora and potential for known adverse health risks associated with the drug.

    Over the years FSC used HIV criminalization to justify disparate testing schemes, perhaps now it is the time to go the other way and at least offer performers the option to add HIV neg antibody testing in the same spirit as yes/no lists.

    Shaming performers for setting limits to work with only antibody confirmed HIV- as their risk threshold in the absence of actual real world & industry U=U data needs to end.

    one last tid bit then I’m done ranting 🙂

    It’s ironic that the people pushing for better access to HIV meds and consistent healthcare are the same ones claiming U=U negates performer risk concerns.

  2. If only YOU were the executive Director…they might have credibility that they SO lack…..I always liked that about you LR..common sense….

  3. lol NFW 😉

    I do think EPL is doing a better job than Duke did five years ago to protect the industry as a whole from the stigmatizing media shitstorms naming, shaming and blaming newly diagnosed performers facilitated.

    I think they are so hyper vigilant in pursuing their anti-discrimination/criminalization agendas that they have crossed the line to be the very thing they cry out against. FEAR of discrimination has marginalized performers right to autonomy.

  4. The FSC and NEVER been about protecting the talent, every decision they make is to keep the porn makers and the porn machine going. Talent are an expendable commodity easily replaced.

    I’m sure some FSC members must think “use em up and throw them away when done, there are 5 more in line waiting to take their place”.

  5. KF exactly right and when performers took some initiative to protect themselves, (APAC) The FSC hijacked it and turned it into a propaganda arm of the FSC so now you have performers protecting their abusers…..only in porn…

  6. FSC primary function of protecting stakeholders goes without saying. Their role in creating AIM, APHSS and PASS was and still is all about protecting stakeholders and keeping CAL/OSHA away from stakeholder pockets.

  7. Mike, is there any harm in calling out the two Euro performers who won’t perform here. Is there backlash that they would suffer?

  8. Spawn, Mike is retired from day to day management of this news site and may not see your comment. Mike’s e-mail is MikeSouthxxx at Gmail Dot Com (replace the written Dot with . and the at with @), you will probably get a faster response that way. You might want to also contact Kelli Roberts (a reporter here that is well known and trusted in this industry) via her e-mail at [email protected]. She has made her phone number public as well but I am very reluctant to put it in this comment. I would tend to trust Kelli’s advice on this issue, especially if you cannot get hold of Mike (I know Mike won’t steer you wrong but since he is retired I don’t expect him to respond to e-mails from readers like he did before he sold the site).

    My take on this is that I wouldn’t out the Euro actresses you ask about. After August’s suicide from industry harassment I would be reluctant to possibly put anyone else in that situation. However, you need someone with a more nuanced take on industry issues than I, when it comes to this subject I tend to err on the side of not publicizing performers unwilling to perform with certain people — especially after August’s unfortunate suicide.

Leave a Reply