3 young porn actors infected with HIV on UK bareback shoot

http://boyz.co.uk/pdfs/843/pdfs/06_BOYZ_In_The_Know.pdf


Three young male actors, aged 18, 21 and 26,
were infected with HIV whilst making a British
bareback gay porn film last month. The boys
were performing alongside a 26 year old actor who
had tested negative several weeks before production,
but it later transpired that he was HIV positive at the
time of filming.

Boyz has learnt that only three days after shooting
had finished, the actor undertook a routine monthly
HIV test, only to discover that the result was positive.
He then alerted the DVD company’s director, who
rushed his other young stars to hospital to undergo a
rarely used 48-hour HIV test which it is claimed can
detect HIV within hours of infection, by looking for the
virus’ DNA. All three co-stars were then informed that
their tests were also positive.

See above link to .pdf for the entire story

Thats actually a pretty good testimony to show just how naive many of these younger actors are when it comes to porn shoots i mean seriously...

Quote:

---

‘On all the shoots we do everything: suck, kiss, rim, fuck. I’m passive but he didn’t cum inside me - that never happens in porn, it’s all face and mouth. It must’ve been from his pre-cum inside me.'

---

Sure, theres never ever internal cumshot with bareback porn LOL

Regards,

Lee

It makes my fucking blood boil how many companies still use Bareback and act like it's "hot" or "shocking" or "cool" or some nosie like that.

Three young men have now had their lives cut short so a weekly update can get done and a few bottom feeders can make a buck.

Why are we giving companies that make bareback porn any time? Why are we associating with them?

It's obvious that these are people who are hurting young men, hurting the industry, hurting society and so many people just shrug it off as if "oh well.."

I get so sick of the bottom feeders who come here and post about their bareback shoots and act like they're fucking revolutionaries for making content that's ultimately cut short the lives of lots of young men.. the ones in the movies and the ones who use porn stars as their role models.

From the article:

"Jay's bareback DVD will be out before Christmas. Unsuspecting viewers won't be aware that they're actually watching the young performers being infected with HIV...Even his director was angry, adding, "If we'd have known about (the quick test) we'd have chased it up and made sure we used it.""

Isn't that noble? The directly really DOES care about the safety of his models! In fact, to save the director the bother of having his models tested before bareback scenes, I would just suggest that instead of fucking, the models could play Russian roulette with real bullets. There's really no difference, huh?

- David

what Jasun said...

it was only a matter of time anyway.

and who's the idiot company

hopefully the studio will be sued

Well, and I've always been disgusted and grossed out by the scenes where a model cums in another model's ass, and the bottom then shits out the cum.

How people can find it "hot" to watch some guy risk his life and potentially get infected, or find it exciting to watch somebody shit cum out of their ass is totally beyond me, but perhaps I'm just missing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Thats actually a pretty good testimony to show just how naive many of these younger actors are when it comes to porn shoots i mean seriously...

Regards,

Lee

---

It's a better testimony about requiring "current" HIV test documentation prior to the shoot as "proof" that the model is HIV negative. Any HIV test is good only for the moment in time that the test was taken. The only thing a HIV test documentation requirement does is create a false sense of security as was proven with the Darren James situation when he, with a "current" HIV negative test document, infected three women with HIV.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jIgG

what Jasun said...

it was only a matter of time anyway.

and who's the idiot company

hopefully the studio will be sued

---

The "idiot" company was mentioned in the original post by Keith as well as in the link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

It makes my fucking blood boil how many companies still use Bareback and act like it's "hot" or "shocking" or "cool" or some nosie like that.

Three young men have now had their lives cut short so a weekly update can get done and a few bottom feeders can make a buck.

Why are we giving companies that make bareback porn any time? Why are we associating with them?

It's obvious that these are people who are hurting young men, hurting the industry, hurting society and so many people just shrug it off as if "oh well.."

I get so sick of the bottom feeders who come here and post about their bareback shoots and act like they're fucking revolutionaries for making content that's ultimately cut short the lives of lots of young men.. the ones in the movies and the ones who use porn stars as their role models.

---

Jasun,

Why don't you avoid the drama and the name calling. You don't know that these kids lives have been cut short. Their are many of us who have been living with HIV for many, many years. And, none of us know what the future holds for new discoveries for the treatment of HIV, or even, a cure someday. So knock off the drama. You are smarter than that.

As for the name calling, I'm assuming you are referring to me as a "bottom feeder" since I make bareback films. Simply put, you won't want to call me that to my face or in print by actually mentioning me specifically.

We used to be friends, especially when you were hitting on one of my employees a couple of years back at the CCBill show in Phoenix. We've always had a cordial relationship and I can think of nothing I've done to you personally which warrants the attack you are making on me as a bareback producer.

Not exactly sure what has happened in your life that is now causing you to resort to name calling. I suggest you keep your posts professional and polite. We can all agree to disagree and we can disagree in a manner which isn't offensive.

Bill

Quote:

---

Jay’s bareback DVD will be out before Christmas.
Unsuspecting viewers won’t be aware that they’re actually
watching the young performers being infected
with HIV.

---

And would this also be the marketing for the dvd?

LIVE INSIDE, REAL HIV INFECTION VIDEO! IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE BAREBACK THAN THIS!

[edit] I have a very, to each their own attitude. I'm just turned off by the release of the movie. fyi [/edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Well, and I've always been disgusted and grossed out by the scenes where a model cums in another model's ass, and the bottom then shits out the cum.

How people can find it "hot" to watch some guy risk his life and potentially get infected, or find it exciting to watch somebody shit cum out of their ass is totally beyond me, but perhaps I'm just missing something.

---

Chip,

And you certainly have the right to your opinion. No one would ever attempt to take that away from you. But others, happen to like the scene you described. Guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Everyone has different tastes. Great thing about the freedom in this country is that if you don't like to watch those type of films, you don't have to. You have the absolute right NOT to watch those films. But, would you take away the rights of the guys who do like those type of films simply because you don't like them? That would be the same as me saying, "I'm gay and I don't like straight films, therefore, let's ban all straight films because I don't like them".

And, how do you know the guy who is doing what you described above, isn't already positive and therefore at no risk of "potentially being infected and risking his life" by becoming HIV positive since he already is?

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Chip,

And you certainly have the right to your opinion. No one would ever attempt to take that away from you. But others, happen to like the scene you described. Guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Everyone has different tastes. Great thing about the freedom in this country is that if you don't like to watch those type of films, you don't have to. You have the absolute right NOT to watch those films. But, would you take away the rights of the guys who do like those type of films simply because you don't like them? That would be the same as me saying, "I'm gay and I don't like straight films, therefore, let's ban all straight films because I don't like them".

---

As an advocate of the First Amendment, I support the freedom of anyone who wishes to make such films to make them. To take it a step further, many (including me) find much of the violence in Hollywood films to be as disgusting as some of the more gross porn acts portrayed on film... and no doubt some find the content that we produce to be gross or distasteful. So I don't advocate banning such speech.

But (putting on rose colored glasses) I do wish that content producers would perhaps give at least some thought to the impact their content has on society. Violent video games are banned in much of Europe, and Europe has far lower incidence of violence than the US. Coincidence? Maybe. Correlation does not equal causation, so we don't know for sure, but many studies indicate there is a correlation between viewing violence and more violent behavior, and many studies indicate that repeated viewing of any behavior creates a subconscious acceptance of such behavior. In other words, people watch violence (or barebacking, or shitting cum out of your ass) and people eventually get the subconscious programming that it's OK to do that. Again, I would not advocate banning such expression, but it would be really nice if producers would simply realize the impact they have on people's psyches, and perhaps take that into consideration when producing content.

Quote:

---

And, how do you know the guy who is doing what you described above, isn't already positive and therefore at no risk of "potentially being infected and risking his life" by becoming HIV positive since he already is?

---

I don't. But there are many other STIs in addition to HIV, some of which (hep-C, for example) are even more difficult to treat than HIV. And since you've already said you don't do testing, let's turn it around: Are we to assume that your models already have every STI on the planet and therefore can fuck anyone and everyone completely carefree?

Additionally, last I looked at the literature, it was pretty widely accepted among HIV specialists that mixing strains of HIV (reinfecting someone already infected) frequently introduces additional complications making it even more difficult to treat and stabilize them. And someone who is HIV+ but does not have AIDS can certainly be pushed into a more serious condition through reinfection. Many HIV+ people either don't know this, or are in denial about it. If the reinfection risks are clearly explained to the models involved in a shoot, and they make the conscious choice that they still wish to bareback, then it's been disclosed and it's at that point the model's choice... but I would wager that no such conversation takes place.

People have a right to do what they want to do. Studios have a right to film unsafe or risky or offensive content. The main thing I'm in favor of is full, honest disclosure of risks to the people being asked to take them, minimization of risks wherever possible, and that thought be given to the impact that we, as producers, have on our audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

It's a better testimony about requiring "current" HIV test documentation prior to the shoot as "proof" that the model is HIV negative.

---

I would disagree. I think Lee's point is that very few people, particularly young people, actually understand the risks of bareback sex and STI infection, and the issues of the latency period.

In the past year, I've spoken to about a dozen models that were considering doing (or had already done) bareback work for another studio. After I had fully explained the risks, the limitations of testing, and the secondary factors (anyone willing to bareback has probably done so before, and therefore already at higher risk of transmitting HIV than someone who's never barebacked), in all but one case, the models decided not to accept the offer to bareback, and a number of models who had previously done bareback decided not to do any further work.

If someone is already positive, I point them to the literature on reinfection and the risks of further health complications (something, sadly, many of them are unaware of.)

I really believe that if the risks are properly and fully disclosed, most intelligent people will not choose to take the risk, because it simply isn't worth it. If they do, then it's their choice, but at least they've entered into the situation with a full understanding of the risks.

If a studio cares about its models as people and not simply as exploitable commodities, there really isn't any other way to operate.

Bill, I'm not really thinking of the companies such as yours that use, from what I've been lead to believe, only models who are HIV+. I didn't single you out in that post because I'm not really thinking of your company. I don't think any of your movies have ever featured young men being infected.

I actually get a kick out of some of your stuff. I think you've had some ideas that are rather clever, to be honest, and as long as you stick to the policy of only using models who are HIV+, I'm all for it.

I don't think you've ever suggested that barebacking is shocking, revolutionary or ground-breaking. I'd call you on it if you did. I DO think that you could put that tag on some of the movies you've done (the Cumhole competition comes to mind) but not because of a lack of condoms.

(and for the record.. I was not "hitting on" a member of your staff. I think "flirting with" would be a better characterization. :jasun: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolKnights

And would this also be the marketing for the dvd?

LIVE INSIDE, REAL HIV INFECTION VIDEO! IT DOESN'T GET ANY MORE BAREBACK THAN THIS!

[edit] I have a very, to each their own attitude. I'm just turned off by the release of the movie. fyi [/edit]

---

nothing new for some bareback companies I'm sure
just more known in this video

Seems the solution to avoiding this problem in the future would be to require the 48 hour test 2 days before shooting with a signed agreement from each model pledging to obstain from sex for 48 hours prior to the shoot.

Does this sound logical and safe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Seems the solution to avoiding this problem in the future would be to require the 48 hour test 2 days before shooting with a signed agreement from each model pledging to abstain from sex for 48 hours prior to the shoot.

Does this sound logical and safe?

---

Are you going to lock the door and post guards as well?

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kushiel

Are you going to lock the door and post guards as well?
;)

---

I was just about to say, my (totally unscientific) opinion would be that porn actors that would agree to do bareback scenes would more than likely not be considered benchmarks of uprightness or veracity... (not that there's anything wrong with that...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

Bill, I'm not really thinking of the companies such as yours that use, from what I've been lead to believe, only models who are HIV+. I didn't single you out in that post because I'm not really thinking of your company. I don't think any of your movies have ever featured young men being infected.

I actually get a kick out of some of your stuff. I think you've had some ideas that are rather clever, to be honest, and as long as you stick to the policy of only using models who are HIV+, I'm all for it.

I don't think you've ever suggested that barebacking is shocking, revolutionary or ground-breaking. I'd call you on it if you did. I DO think that you could put that tag on some of the movies you've done (the Cumhole competition comes to mind) but not because of a lack of condoms.

(and for the record.. I was not "hitting on" a member of your staff. I think "flirting with" would be a better characterization. :jasun: )

---

Jasun,

Thanks, you have my apologies. Guess I jumped the gun on that. Any, yep, I'll accept the "flirting" as oppsed to "hitting". He's still talking about that so you certainly made an impression.

And, I'll agree that the "tag" could be placed on the Cumhole Competition. Actually, we've never done that again and what I do find particularly disgusting within the bareback side of the industry are the 20 load and then 30 load and 50 load weekends. That's a bit over the top even for us.

And Chip, just as a point of clarification, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the issue of....what is referred to as a "super-infection" has, to the best of my knowledge never been proven. Their is a lot of literature that talks about the "possibility" of it, but everything I've read about it, and as a person with HIV, I stay pretty updated on HIV research, all I've ever seen is that it is referred to as a theory and possibility, especially if the particular strain of the HIV virus that is common place in remote parts of the world every begins to spread here within in the United States. At this point, the number of individuals who have been diagnosed with that strain in this country as to not even being counted in the statistics.

No model shoots for us who isn't fully aware of all of the risks involved with having unsafe sex. While I've never confirmed or denied that our models are HIV+, I can tell you that if a prospective model tells us that he is HIV negative and wants to become infected on our set, their is a better chance that China will become a democracy and George Bush will be their President than the prospective model will ever be involved in one of our productions.

If we can ever figure out a way to test the models on the day of the shoot and get the results immediately, we'll be doing it. But, at this point we haven't had any luck accomplishing this. We've even requested the permission to use the test known as OraSure, but it's only available to doctors offices and clinics who test for HIV.

As for the other STD's, of course we are concerned, especially HEP-C, and we spend a lot of time talking with our models about these issues.

If you guys are at the show in LA, hope you are having a blast. Two of our guys, Lee and Luis are there, be sure to say "hi" if you see them.

Bill

I notice no one ever has a problem discussing the controversial subjects here :french: but the Gay Porn Blogs sure do. :chicken:

Guess I am not one of them http://dewayneinsd.blogspot.com/2007...th-hiv-on.html

BTW I repeat here what I say in my post on the UK story what a lot of us have a problem with are young men in England (or Euroland) paid 300 or 400 for a Bareback scene that may or may not result in infection.

No one seriously includes a company like HDK or even T.I.M. since they are using Adult men who know and should understand the risks and are assumed to be POZ.

Young Twink boys doing the same (even if they do so in their private lives) is simply reprehensible and will ultimately damage All Gay Porn!

An 18 yo simply don't know squat, who cares if its legal to film him BareBack,that does not make it right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wildwildwest

I was just about to say, my (totally unscientific) opinion would be that porn actors that would agree to do bareback scenes would more than likely not be considered benchmarks of uprightness or veracity... (not that there's anything wrong with that...)

---

Well, no... not exactly the point that I'm making. While there have been several times that I've read in various adult publications about larger studios forbidding their talent from being promiscuous whilst on a shoot, (if I remember correctly, Bel Ami was one of them, and I think maybe Falcon.. but this is from memory - don't quote me) this is an occurrence that has two major points.

One - These are bigger companies that can afford to put up the talent for the entirety of the shoot, whether it be for a couple days or a couple weeks for full - length features.

Secondarily, oft-times these are experienced talent that understand exactly what is going on, understand exactly what the reasons for the precautions are, and they have enough of a rapport with the studio to have a level of trust between them.

For a lot of the younger studios, this isn't something that they're able to have, simply because the maturity and rapport aren't present - they have boys, (*ahem* Young men) that they get off the street locally, or who drive in. There's not a great deal of control there. What if the talent came into town early and decided to check out the local scene prior to the shoot? From what I understand, the men would have to have not engaged in behavior that would put them at risk for at least 90 days or so prior to the test, for it to be within an accurate "window period".

"Benchmarks of uprightness or veracity?" Perhaps not. Teenagers and young men that think that they're invincible and it'll only happen to someone else? Absolutely. 'Fresh' talent that don't understand the internal politics, practices, history, and risks of the industry? Damn right. Naïve young men who think that every producer is a, "benchmark of uprightness and veracity," because they portray themselves as the best friend, able to promise them the world, money, and all they sex they can handle? I'm afraid so.

No, not all studios are like this... not all talent is that gullible... but some are. The scary thing is... a lot of times, you don't know who is who until after the fact.

Of course at the show, this thread has been a topic of conversation and everyone seems to agree that studios should take a bit of responsibility.

Anyone should know about the 48-hour tests, but that's not even the real issue.

It's too easy to say that these men are 18 and can make their own decisions, but I think we can all agree that if you're 18 and HIV-, having bareback sex isn't a good decision and we as the responsible adults need to step in. Young men think they're invincible and are notorious for making bad decisions and I think it's unconscionable for companies to exploit that.

when my little brother told me that he was having bareback sex, I kicked his ass. Maybe it's too much to ask that the adult industry puts their performers ahead of a bit more money?

Oh, and I got about 30 people offering to buy me a drink for using the term "Bottom Feeders." Too bad I went to rehab and no longer drink, eh?:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasun

Oh, and I got about 30 people offering to buy me a drink for using the term "Bottom Feeders." Too bad I went to rehab and no longer drink, eh?:thumbsdown:

---

Too bad? Not a bit. If you've made the decision to be sober, you shouldn't regret it. Otherwise, the choice is pointless. Just tell them that you'll gladly accept a Jack and Coke, hold the Jack.
:thumbsup:

I've watched young men die horrid deaths for 30 years. Too many of them, dear Friends. In the begining, I was able to justify the poor choices because of the Gov't lies and lack of clear information. However I will NEVER understand why in 2007- with a full generation that has never known a world without AIDS- ANYONE has to explain the risks you take, when you don't wrap the willie.

My 22 year old Son's eduction about STDs began LONG before he ever thought about getting laid, and I know his public school experiences aren't any different than any other US student. PSAs, thinking parents, TV shows and even their middle schools have sent out the message loud and clear - yet I'm hearing that new models have to be informed of the risks. Actually Educated.

Sure you have to speak it - to do otherwise would be illegal- but truly should any of you HAVE to?

Sigh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kushiel

Too bad? Not a bit. If you've made the decision to be sober, you shouldn't regret it. Otherwise, the choice is pointless. Just tell them that you'll gladly accept a Jack and Coke, hold the Jack.
:thumbsup:

---

Hell, hold out for dinner! Anyway, sober you really get more done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame0120

Sure you have to speak it - to do otherwise would be illegal- but truly should any of you HAVE to?

Sigh.

---

Madame,

As a member of the self same generation, I have to point out that I was educated in school too.. In a backward town on the KY/TN border. I knew about it, I read about it, I learned about it in -every- health class that I had, from middle school up. Every health class, whether it was Sex Ed, or not.

That being said, are you really and truly that surprised? There are kids running around drinking and driving. There are grown adults running around drinking and driving. Want drugs? Find a gay friend, they've got the -best- drugs. Wanna fuck? Who needs a condom? No one, of course.

Yes, we should legally have to make sure that we make talent aware of every risk in the business. We also have to relentlessly pound it into everyone's head, because my generation, to be frank... doesn't care.

Like it was said prior, young men think they're invincible. I myself went through it. I was at every club, at every party. I knew the risks.. and I took them anyway because it was fun, and flaunting danger is a young man's prerogative. Was it smart? Bloody hells, no - and I'm lucky I came out of it.

From dating a call boy, to sharing his 'income'... it took him OD'ing and dying to wake me up, but it did.

Just because someone's been told about the danger, doesn't mean they consciously will admit to it. That's why we have to shout it at them, because if they refuse to think about it..

Out of sight, out of mind... Even if they deliberately put it out of sight.

*sighs right back at you* Of course we shouldn't -have- to. You may have been at it longer, but I think all of us here have friends or family that this affects. Time doesn't make it any easier.:kickcan:

how sad for those young guys :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kushiel

Are you going to lock the door and post guards as well?

;)

---

Well of course not :P

Most producers ask models not to cum for the two days prior to a shoot anyway to assure a hot money shot.

Having a model sign an agreement that they wont have sex for the two days after the test, and until the shoot, would eliminate liability on the producers side if anyone was to be infected, but more importantly it puts into realization that failure to do so could endanger their life.

Everyone here has had unprotected sex in their lifetime. It's troubling to see the hypocrisy that straight bareback sex is natural, but Gay bareback sex is deadly. Gay porn actors have to wear condoms, straight porn actors don't. I don't see anyone here producing Gay porn where the actor getting a blowjob is wearing a condom. What a mess! Whoever is pushing this agenda really needs to look at WHY and WHO is influencing them to do so.

and straight also doesn't produce no-condom movies with known HIV+ models cuming in another model's ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jIgG

and straight also doesn't produce no-condom movies with known HIV+ models cuming in another model's ass

---

What's your point?

I think his point is that straight USA producers do testing and do not use HIV+ performers. Whereas the majority of bareback producers, at least in the USA, do not do testing and use HIV+ performers.

The unspoken truth is that most of the perfomers in USA produced gay bareback are HIV+. That's why they usually have no issues with taking multiple loads and performing bareback, they are already positive. At the very least the producers should tell the truth and put warning screens on the films telling people that the performers are already HIV+ and are chosing to perform without condoms. At least that would help people better understand the behaviour and make more informed choices.

Unfortunately, that is not the case in most of the Euro twink bareback being produced. In most cases there is no managed and honest testing going on. Another issue is that many of the Euro twink models are from poorer Slavic countries with little if any HIV education. Many are "straight" or bi and think that if they only perform with other "straight" or bi guys they will not get HIV. They think that they are only at risk if they have sex with a self identified gay performer.

Any studio that wants to do so can establish rules such as Kushiel is suggesting for models who will be working with them.

We are unusually strict; models who work with us cannot drink or do drugs for the entire time they are working with us (though if they wish to stick around in the area for a few days afterwards, we don't care what happens once the shoot is finished.) We don't permit them to go out to clubs or whatever either, simply because when we attempted to allow models to act responsibly, it never worked. This is in part to ensure they're ready and looking good when it's time to do their scenes, and in part to reduce the risks of sexual encounters outside the controlled setting of our shoots. And we do this in spite of the fact that we don't shoot any bareback.

So we make it clear, they sign an agreement that has pretty severe penalties, and we don't hesitate to send anyone home who breaks the rules. The surprising thing is, while they might grumble when they first get here, by the end of the shoot period (usually 7-10 days), they are all happy and delighted, they've made deep, often longlasting friendships with the other models, and many who have worked with other studios before us tell us they have no interest in working for anyone else after working with us.

Of course, there are some models who grumble and complain, and they can simply go work for somebody else. We have way more applicants than we can ever use, so I just don't buy the argument that a studio cannot control the actions of its models. If they decide to work with us, they do so under our terms, which are spelled out in detail, in writing, before they arrive. If they don't like the terms we offer, they go elsewhere. So there are almost never any disagreements, we don't have issues with models fucking around off set or getting drunk and disappearing, and we are able to at least make a best effort at risk reduction. Any studio that wishes to could do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hdkbill

Jasun,

And Chip, just as a point of clarification, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the issue of....what is referred to as a "super-infection" has, to the best of my knowledge never been proven. Their is a lot of literature that talks about the "possibility" of it, but everything I've read about it, and as a person with HIV, I stay pretty updated on HIV research, all I've ever seen is that it is referred to as a theory and possibility, especially if the particular strain of the HIV virus that is common place in remote parts of the world every begins to spread here within in the United States. At this point, the number of individuals who have been diagnosed with that strain in this country as to not even being counted in the statistics.

---

I can't say you're right or wrong, and I don't have time to update my research right now, but as of 10/2005, when I originally posted this to GWW, there was apparently some pretty solid evidence on the reinfection issue:

I just did a fairly exhaustive Medline search and there is apparently pretty solid evidence for two different problems relating to reinfection: recombinant HIV, in which two slightly different strains of HIV form a recombinant form of HIV that becomes medication resistant, and the emergence of what in the literature is called "superinfection", which is apparently the new infection of people with the recombinant strain. (Sex Transm Dis. 2004 Apr;31(4):201-4 )

Among other issues, they specifically address bareback sex between HIV+ people as the source of the recombinant HIV, though it is less certain whether superinfection is a result of exposure to multiple HIV strains (as in barebacking with multiple HIV+ partners) or a single exposure to a person that already has a recombinant infection.

Other articles in the literature point to difficulties with these strains responding to known medications and, additionally, a significant acceleration of the pathological effects of HIV as a result of the recombinant strains.

As with any other emerging research, there is some conflict in the literature, with some studies indicating less impact than others, but it seems the majority of studies are now reporting this as being a serious problem. It also appears to be a *separate* problem from the emergence of HIV-2, the more aggressive strain of HIV.

So while my initial post was based on repeating the information given to one of my friends by his HIV-specialist physician, this post is based on my own research in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

The full thread is located here
http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...ad.php?t=14165

and when I get a lil caught up, I will do a new search of the medical literature and see how the thinking has changed in the past two years, but perhaps this will help in the meantime.