16 Cases Of HIV Infected Performers Covered Up Since 2004

[Lee]

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County Public Health officials released information Thursday that indicates that there have been 16 previously unpublicized cases of confirmed HIV cases of industry performers since the last outbreak in 2004.

The data released Thursday brings the number of known HIV cases in adult performers to 22 since 2004, including “Patient Zero,“ the actress who tested positive late June 6.

Ten of those cases involved men who had sex with other men, according to health officials.

In all, 16 men and 6 women who worked as adult film industry performers contracted HIV between 2004 and 2008, the Health Department said. The county agency also said that between 1998 and 2003, there were 14 confirmed HIV cases among adult film performers.

It was not immediately clear whether the previously unpublicized HIV infections involved transmission of the virus on the set.

“Rumor is rampant when the words HIV and porn are in the same sentence; the media is like a moth to a flame,” AIM Healthcare cofounder Sharon Mitchell said. “We are finding that many clients, patients and companies are tempted to discuss this delicate matter with the world for whatever personal or professional gain.

"Fact is, that we are still awaiting final confirmation on the Patient Zero, who was given a positive result on Saturday, June 6.”

AIM’s Dr. Colin Hamblin described the woman as having had two recent sexual partners, a fellow porn actor who worked with her on June 5 and her boyfriend, who is not in the porn industry. Those men have had sexual intercourse with an additional six people and all have been notified.

Patient Zero is described by AIM administrator Brooke Hunter as a "video performer."

The performer's last negative test was April 29, according to AIM. She previously had been described as being in "a small number of films," which would explain the 36-day gap between tests.

There are two first-generation industry partners for Patient Zero.

One of her industry partners has tested "not detected" by a PCR/DNA test, most recently on June 8. He will retest on June 22, at the end of 14 days. His last negative test was May 13.

A second industry partner, in Las Vegas, tested "not detected" most recently on June 9. He worked with the infected woman on June 5. He will be retested on June 19, at the end of 14 days.

A second-generation exposure, the girlfriend of one of the industry partners, last tested negative on May 19 and will retest on June 19.

The last outbreak in 2004 involved an actor who had returned from working in Brazil spread the virus to three actresses who had performed with him. A transsexual performer unrelated to the other cases also tested positive.

XBIZ calls to AIM for comment late Thursday went unreturned.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/109234

Its actually quite shocking to see yet another organization who is supposed to be looking out for the industry do nothing more than look out for their own profits.

Whats even worse is, it seems like some of these possible HIV infections have reached outside of the industry in the form of these performers partners.

I really do think that we'll be seeing the end of bareback content being produced in the United States shortly. After this information comes to the attention of the public and legislators, there is no way in hell a 'condom required' law wont be passed.

Its a shame there is no way of knowing which studios are involved in this too, i wonder if its just one or two studios or if its a whole bunch of them knowingly putting industry talent at risk?

Regards,

Lee

[JakeCruise]

"It was not immediately clear whether the previously unpublicized HIV infections involved transmission of the virus on the set. "

Just like accountants, waiters, postal workers, etc., people with all types of occupations will contract HIV. The question to be asked before the hysteria really gets going is this.

Has any performer contracted HIV from another performer who had a negative test result from AIM?

Yes, there have been a couple of dozens of cases of performers testing HIV positive. But there have been thousands of people in other professions testing positive as well.

An AIM is restricted by law to not give out patient information, unlike they were in 2004 when they were able to give out the names of the performers.

And to clear the record, AIM is a non profit organization so they are not out dragging their feet to make money.

On my part I have produced bareback content with testing through AIM. I have written demanding to know the question I asked above. Once I have a response I will make a decision on whether or not to continue shooting any bareback content.

[nickbaer]

Shooting a bareback scene because the actors have negative AIM test results is meaningless, worthless.

1) Any HIV test measures antibodies to HIV developed by the body within X-days of exposure. That amount of time varies by person. It could be 30 days or 300 days.

2) The test does not cover contact after the test date.

The purpose of an HIV test is to inform a medical professional that the patient has been exposed to HIV.

NOT that the person has NOT been... and then can perform bareback.

Medical tests do not determine and declare that someone is "well", only when and if someone is "not well". You can have a temp of 98.6F and still have a bacterial or viral infection.

As with any science, medical tests do not prove that something is "right", only that something (a theory, a formula) is not right/correct.

[gaybucks_chip]

Shooting a bareback scene because the actors have negative AIM test results is meaningless, worthless.

1) Any HIV test measures antibodies to HIV developed by the body within X-days of exposure. That amount of time varies by person. It could be 30 days or 300 days.

Actually that isn't true any more. AIM uses the more sensitive PCR test which detects actual presence of the virus. Since the virus replicates very rapidly in someone newly infected, the PCR test can detect infection as soon as 12 days afterwards. I don't think the accuracy rate reaches into the high 90th percentiles until later (30-60 days) but it's a lot better than the original antibody tests.

2) The test does not cover contact after the test date.

This is true, and one of the biggest objections I've had to the shooting of bareback content. Unless you lock the performer in a room for 30-60 days after the test, you can't be sure that s/he hasn't had unsafe sex and therefore gotten infected.

The other thing to keep in mind about the recent announcement is... a large percentage of gay studios/producers don't test at all, and of those who do, a lot of them don't use AIM. So AIM's reporting, particularly of gay performers, will only cover those very few that do report to them. I shudder to think how many bareback studios aren't testing at all. I remember one of the studios that used to post here a lot always had a million excuses about why they couldn't test... but then started doing so.

The other thing is, bareback or condom, there is still a significant transmission risk because nobody shoots oral sex with condoms, performers frequently cum on one another's faces, and there are lots of opportunities for transmission other than anal sex, which is the only time anybody uses condoms.

Some studios do take extra precautions (not shooting facials, not having a model cum in another's mouth, etc) to reduce risk, but most don't. And so testing, even for models shooting safer sex content, is still a wise idea.