Lite Beer Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Alert issued after likely HIV porn set infection LOS ANGELES (AP) — California public health officials issued an alert Monday after finding "very strong evidence" that an adult film actor became infected with HIV as a result of unprotected sex on an out-of-state film shoot.The Department of Public Health said the male actor tested positive for the virus that causes AIDS after engaging in unprotected sex with several other male actors during two separate film shoots. He had tested negative before the shoot."During the second film shoot, he had symptoms of a viral infection," the alert states. "The actor went to a clinic and had another blood test that showed he had recently become infected with HIV."One actor from the second shoot has since tested positive for HIV. According to the health department, lab results indicate the first actor who tested positive "probably transmitted" HIV to the second.A health department official was unable to immediately release further details regarding the lab testing and investigation. The alert notes that very early in an HIV infection, the test can be negative "even though the actor really does have HIV.""In this case, the actor and production company thought he was HIV-negative during filming," the alert states. "Shortly after his negative test, HIV levels in his body rose rapidly to where he could infect other actors through unprotected sex.A California-based trade group for the adult film industry declined to comment.A health department official declined to release any information regarding when the transmission had taken place or which company it involved, citing privacy restrictions, but said the apparent transmission occurred in Nevada."It's happened before, it's happened now, and it will happen in the future," said Michael Weinstein, president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "The big lie the industry has been saying all these years, there are no on-set transmissions, has been proven to be untrue."The foundation championed an ordinance adopted by Los Angeles County voters in 2012 requiring actors in pornographic films to use condoms. The porn industry has fought the ordinance, saying having actors use condoms would interfere with a film's fantasy element by subjecting viewers to real-world concerns like pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. A federal appeals court recently ruled the ordinance does not violate freedom of speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution."Whatever unique message plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message," Judge Susan P. Graber wrote in the ruling.Several porn companies have moved shoots out of the county over the last two years in response to the ordinance. The number of porn filmmakers applying for permits in LA County has declined sharply, from 485 in 2012 to 40 in 2013. Industry officials have contended the ordinance is not necessary, citing their requirement that working actors be tested for sexually transmitted diseases every two weeks.The last confirmed on-set HIV infection was in 2004. After that, the adult industry adopted the biweekly testing for a range of sexually transmitted diseases. -- (c) Associated Press 2014-12-30 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bi-weekly testing blah blah. These actors know what they risk. No sympathy from me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryfrompattaya Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Thanks I will stay from America Porn Actress. I advise others to do the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siampolee Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 What I would like to know is, . Was it a private dick or a public dick that furnished the information to arouse this warning? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonobo Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 We require hardhats on construction sites, life vests for commercial fishermen, and reflective vests for roadside workers. From a legal standpoint, I am not sure condoms for porn actors would be different. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siampolee Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bonobo post # 6 We require hardhats on construction sites, life vests for commercial fishermen, and reflective vests for roadside workers. From a legal standpoint, I am not sure condoms for porn actors would be different. Yes a slogan like. ''Helmets for helmets'' should be on all agents and recording facility walls .At the start and end of a session a warning bell could ring acting as a ''bell end start cover alarm or bell end can now be uncovered alarm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudRight Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bi-weekly testing blah blah. These actors know what they risk. No sympathy from me. So they deserve to get HIV? You deserve therapy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidee Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 was it gay porn ? tought all those USA guys were CUT down there and had 0% chance of getting HIV/AIDS ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bi-weekly testing blah blah. These actors know what they risk. No sympathy from me. So they deserve to get HIV? You deserve therapy. "Deserve" is your word. I only use it in this way.... If you have unprotected sex with other known-to-be promiscuous people who also have unprotected sex, then the risk is your own and you deserve no sympathy. If you sympathise, perhaps you also empathise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daiwill60 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Several porn companies have moved shoots out of the county over the last two years in response to the ordinance. The number of porn filmmakers applying for permits in LA County has declined sharply, from 485 in 2012 to 40 in 2013. Industry officials have contended the ordinance is not necessary, citing their requirement that working actors be tested for sexually transmitted diseases every two weeks. The last confirmed on-set HIV infection was in 2004. After that, the adult industry adopted the biweekly testing for a range of sexually transmitted diseases. Test every two weeks but can act as often as they like within those two weeks ???? obviously does not work does it, especially if it cannot be detected in the very early stages. Money is the operandi here obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canman Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bi-weekly testing blah blah. These actors know what they risk. No sympathy from me. Astronauts know what they risk so by your logic no sympathy for loss of life there? What about coal miners they know the risk The police; they know everyday they leave home they may not come back, no sympathy there either I suppose. Or is your statement based on moralistic judgment and not risk factors? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmatt Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Thanks I will stay from America Porn Actress. I advise others to do the same Says guys on guys no mention of females. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klauskunkel Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 The porn industry has fought the ordinance, saying having actors use condoms would interfere with a film's fantasy element by subjecting viewers to real-world concerns like pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. A federal appeals court recently ruled the ordinance does not violate freedom of speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That means that while wearing a condom you still have the liberty to grunt, moan, hyperventilate, scream, yowl, yodel, or otherwise express and describe the state you are in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JacChang Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Being the "professionals" of the sex industry, they should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Robson Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 It's very rare to see condoms in porn movies, I understand *cough* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docno Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 was it gay porn ? tought all those USA guys were CUT down there and had 0% chance of getting HIV/AIDS ? Hope you're being sarcastic with this statement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bi-weekly testing blah blah. These actors know what they risk. No sympathy from me. Astronauts know what they risk so by your logic no sympathy for loss of life there? What about coal miners they know the risk The police; they know everyday they leave home they may not come back, no sympathy there either I suppose. Or is your statement based on moralistic judgment and not risk factors? No moral judgement except perhaps against people who knowingly or recklessly endanger other people. Your analogies would be accurate if you asked about a policeman who knowingly left his weapon and body armour at home, or the coal miner who deliberately didn't wear his hard hat down in the mine, or the astronaut who chose not to run the safety checks, otherwise, as they stand, your analogies are silly and make no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudRight Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bi-weekly testing blah blah. These actors know what they risk. No sympathy from me. So they deserve to get HIV? You deserve therapy. "Deserve" is your word. I only use it in this way.... If you have unprotected sex with other known-to-be promiscuous people who also have unprotected sex, then the risk is your own and you deserve no sympathy. If you sympathise, perhaps you also empathise? No-one is so perfect that they require no sympathy, or anyone so imperfect that they deserve no sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirpia Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Tough news to get. He must have been bummed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 hardly see this as earth shattering enough to make the headlines - compared to the tainted needles last week was it in cambodia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAMHERE Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 No condomless sex in 'any' movie. No smoking in any movie. No large containers of coke, pepsi, etc... No spitting on sidewalks, no drinking of beer, whiskey, whisky, etc... I don't think they should have fat people unless they die or have great blood pressure. Many other things should not be depicted in movies, all good guys must wear white hats, bad guys black, things like that. NO donuts and no sexy women that may entice young men to do bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humqdpf Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 bi-weekly testing blah blah. These actors know what they risk. No sympathy from me. So they deserve to get HIV? You deserve therapy. Imagine the following scenario: a couple who individually had very active sex lives decide to be committed/get married and get tested so that they can dispense with protection. Even though both are faithful to each other, some time later, it turns out that both are HIV + (because the test did not pick up the original infection due to timing etc). Do they "deserve" it? And no sympathy? All activities have risks and many carry a risk of very severe injury or death - driving vehicles, for instance. Or playing sports. Do we say that everyone who engages in driving, riding in vehicles, crossing the street, engaging in sports deserves the severe injuries or death that a very small number experience? Perhaps the original poster would prefer that no one leave their homes and not engage in food preparation or any kind of work (all such activities carry risks). I think that it is quite an achievement by the porn industry that there has been so little HIV+ transmission on sets. This safety record is because of the testing system that is in place. Of course, no safety system will reduce risk to absolute nil - even with all the extra safety features in vehicles today, people still die and are horribly injured in car crashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre0720 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 We require hardhats on construction sites, life vests for commercial fishermen, and reflective vests for roadside workers. From a legal standpoint, I am not sure condoms for porn actors would be different. And seat belts, and helmets while on the roads... Some more requirements being ignored.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoBrainer Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I guess if you get enough dicks up your b**t you have a pretty good chance of catching something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackson86 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 is it worth getting infected for all the pleasure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwanatickey Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Wow, you posters know your subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusd Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 was it gay porn ? tought all those USA guys were CUT down there and had 0% chance of getting HIV/AIDS ? ignorance reigns supreme here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidee Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 was it gay porn ? tought all those USA guys were CUT down there and had 0% chance of getting HIV/AIDS ? ignorance reigns supreme here the circumcision lobby in the US takes this as their biggest advantage : a cut forskin = less change of getting aids / hiv look it up instead of talking ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now