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.

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”.

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.

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.