Rod Daily tweets hes HIV Postitive

[TSMichelleAustin]

He just recently this year started shooting transsexual porn for many companies. So sad, such a talented guy!

See full article here: http://www.xbiz.com/news/168395

Rod Daily, the male performer linked romantically to HIV-infected female performer Cameron Bay, says on Twitter that he's tested HIV-positive.

Daily, has who worked in gay videos, said that he's walking away from porn.

Revelations on his status were made in a series of tweets.

"I'm blessed for the fact that I caught it so early ... with the tests I have done the doctors have figured out that I was infected within the last month," Daily's tweets said. "My antibodies just showed up on a test this week which is scary because they didn't a week ago. I have also learned that people can be so well medicated that they test negative. Scary, the test everyone relies on."

[VictoriaVeil]

Wow.

[RadiusDark]

Yea, one of the brand new ts models just shot with him. She was at least topping and wearing a condom, but damn.

[TSMichelleAustin]

Yea, one of the brand new ts models just shot with him. She was at least topping and wearing a condom, but damn.

He just shot last month with a few girls for Kink... one is very new!!! Sucks! Thats why condoms is a good thing!

[ARMANIXXX]

Is he gay?

[TSMichelleAustin]

Is he gay?

He shoots gay content, str8 and trans... so I wouldn't say hes gay, id say he doesn't discriminate!!! But he was in a love relationship with the girl who tested positive a few wks ago.

[youngblood61]

Just hope more people weren't infected.

[Rockit_]

Yeah, he was with Aubrey Kate. I hope she's alright.

[LilyRox]

Scary stuff hope everyone is ok

[saifan]

Scary stuff hope everyone is ok

Ditto. He worked with quite a few girls.

[WendyWilliams]

Aubrey is fine, she had tested twice since her Aug 1st shoot with him. Both results were negative. Also her shoot was with condoms.

[BellaBellucci]

Condoms. That is all.

~BB~

[MrsKellyPierce]

So sad in general...

These cases are bound to happen..

I admire him and Cameron for being so forthcoming and honest, especially with how many people love to point fingers and shame each other.

Sex in general is RISKY.

Testing and condoms are great, but there will always be a percentage of being unsafe.

I'm more disappointed with the industry instead of having compassion for these people they shame them. When many models do the same exact things, escorting, bisexual sex, and other activities. But because it's not their test that showed positive they love to point the finger!

We are in the sex industry, and if someone is shooting a ton plus maintaining a personal life or escorting the risk factor goes up even more!

It just so happen it was Rod and Cameron...

Not to mention just because you test negative doesn't always mean it's true!

Some people who have HIV can be undetectable or if they are being treated and healthy can show negative.

Condoms can break and it's even been proven that there are holes in condoms that the hiv virus can pass through.

I think the industry overall does quite well not having a shit load more people test positive, but no one likes to admit how unsafe they are till they test positive for something. They just point fingers and say told you so.

[RallyCola]

+1 for safe sex.

Bareback might look good on camera, but it isn't worth the risk.

As far as testing goes...it has been argued before but even testing yourself is meaningless for your sake because all it does is tell you if you are healthy so you don't spread anything. you have to have such confidence in your partner's testing regimen that it makes safe sex a far better alternative. You could test yourself every 2 days and it is still meaningless. If you are tested on a monday morning but get banged out bareback by an infected person that night, what did your testing mean?

trust no one and insist on safe conditions because the few extra bucks a producer will shell out for bareback probably isn't worth it.

[IWasHerxxxx]

Thank god I didn't take Rod Daily up on the offer of fucking me back in 2012..

[christianxxx]

give me a break - what a one-sided nonsensical argument

[Vladimir Putin]

Hopefully this will make the adult film industry shoot all future productions with condoms and not mind so much how the public will react. I believe more people getting infected is more likely to kill the industry than making talent wear condoms.

This is really sad. It's been 2 1/2 years since I've done anything mildly risky because I too worry about what is out there. I had myself tested a couple of years ago and haven't done anything since. I see I'm not missing anything.

[christianxxx]

a test that is 2 days old obviously vastly reduces the possibility that someone is or isn't HIV positive at the time of the test. more tests further back give a better picture of someone's health history.

Rally Cola couldn't be more wrong. That kind of argument is like going into a grocery store, buying a lottery ticket, and thinking you are going to actually win.

Getting infected with HIV isn't that easy to do. Think about this, since we started testing in 1999 and then added clam/gon testing and added syphilis/hep c tests, and some companies have made 14 day tests mandatory...how many scenes do you think have been shot?

a million? 2 million? and there have been ZERO positive HIV transmission cases since 2004. ZERO. Testing works...and will always work.

Rod Daily and Cameron Bay contracted HIV off camera in their private lives. When they wanted to do a scene, the testing clinic caught them, and they are now not allowed to work.

Let me say that again, testing works. ZERO on set HIV transmissions in over 9 years with hundreds of porn scenes shot every day!

[pimpdog]

lol@people assuming he got it from a shoot with no condom, probably from his personal life, could be sex, could be drugs.

[christianxxx]

and where are condoms this fantastic option? condoms don't help against syphilis or Hep C, both incurable diseases. Even the condom makers themselves won't guarantee that condoms work all the time. Read the back of a condom box and tell you that you are confident in the condom being perfect.

[pimpdog]

and where are condoms this fantastic option? condoms don't help against syphilis or Hep C, both incurable diseases. Even the condom makers themselves won't guarantee that condoms work all the time. Read the back of a condom box and tell you that you are confident in the condom being perfect.
exactly, hep c is a scary thing, spreading like wildfire, condoms are just a precaution not a fool proof thing.

[fivekatz]

Good time for prayers or whatever way you put positive vibrations into the universe, IMHO rather than a debate about whether Nancy Reagan was right of if we should all buy stock in Trojan's Magnum.

Best Wishes to Rod Daily in his battle to stay health and medicated.

Does anybody know if his medical expenses are going to be covered. HIV is a bitch that wants all your money and if you don't pay AIDS does collection. Seriously is he covered or should the board start a fund and viral campaign!

[RallyCola]

no one ever said a condom was perfect...but it is another safeguard.

christian...i'm not saying you have to use a condom. i'm a big fan/supporter of your work...but i also don't see a problem with someone insisting that their partner were one either.

my point is that as a porn consumer, watching a hot girl getting banged out is neither made better by raw fucking nor made worse by being gloved up. if the majority of consumers prefer bareback stuff, and revenue in scene sales reflect that, then obviously do what is most profitable.

[ew86riv]

a test that is 2 days old obviously vastly reduces the possibility that someone is or isn't HIV positive at the time of the test. more tests further back give a better picture of someone's health history.

Rally Cola couldn't be more wrong. That kind of argument is like going into a grocery store, buying a lottery ticket, and thinking you are going to actually win.

Getting infected with HIV isn't that easy to do. Think about this, since we started testing in 1999 and then added clam/gon testing and added syphilis/hep c tests, and some companies have made 14 day tests mandatory...how many scenes do you think have been shot?

a million? 2 million? and there have been ZERO positive HIV transmission cases since 2004. ZERO. Testing works...and will always work.

Rod Daily and Cameron Bay contracted HIV off camera in their private lives. When they wanted to do a scene, the testing clinic caught them, and they are now not allowed to work.

Let me say that again, testing works. ZERO on set HIV transmissions in over 9 years with hundreds of porn scenes shot every day!

what's the difference between shooting a scene and catching hiv on set or having sex with another tested performer off camera during a period where a test says you're good to work? between cameron bay and rod daily one of them caught it and passed it to the other. there's no way, in my opinion, they caught hiv in two separate incidents. obviously one person caught it doing something wrong, but they're both tied to each other. i understand why you're saying it wasn't on set, but isn't that a little misleading? it was between two tested performers.

condoms would help prevention of hiv between performers, but i think the testing protocols have to change in some way. just because you're negative one day doesn't mean you don't have it. it could show up at a later date.

[TSMichelleAustin]

Why knowing ur status and knowing others outside of work is a must. You gotta play safe in your personal life not just work. I commend Rod for coming out and taking ownership of this. SHows how great of a guy he is.

[RallyCola]

christian...your argument is tragically flawed because it insinuates that porn stars do not have sex off set. if there have been no on set transmission of disease, yet people in porn continue to contract any STD (not just HIV) that means that again, testing works in preventing YOU from spreading what you may have gotten off set. it is an issue of trust you have to have in the process.

let's put in very simply......What about the girl or guy rod daly might have fucked bareback the day before he popped positive? the person who's asshole he was tearing up uncovered minutes before he got the call from the clinic?

[fivekatz]

SERIOUSLY DOES THIS GUY NEDD CONTRIBUTIONS for medical care?

WE SHOULD HELP, I know we can't begin tp deal with total costs but it would be a start. Nobody would have to face a battle with nasty, nasty virus alone, so you see the dollars would heal well beyond what ever donation any one member could afford

I am not saying the other things people are discusssing aren't VITAL, but they are tactical and Rod Dailey is here and now I guess.



Good time for prayers or whatever way you put positive vibrations into the universe, IMHO rather than a debate about whether Nancy Reagan was right of if we should all buy stock in Trojan's Magnum.

Best Wishes to Rod Daily in his battle to stay health and medicated.

Does anybody know if his medical expenses are going to be covered. HIV is a bitch that wants all your money and if you don't pay AIDS does collection. Seriously is he covered or should the board start a fund and viral campaign!

[christianxxx]

my argument is what are the odds of that? 1,000,000 to 1? 2,000,000 to 1? in order for your scenario to be true

1. rod daily has to have the HIV virus and it must be in a transferable stage
2. he has to be hired for a scene that day
3. he has to fuck someone bareback and creampie them in that scene
4. the person receiving the anal creampie has to have a low enough immune system to contract the virus
5. he has to finish the scene before he gets the call from the clinic.

again, what are the odds of that scenario? 1 in 10,000,000? higher? lower?

Rod Daily had a negative test every month for years. The one time he caught HIV it was caught by our testing center.

[christianxxx]

what's the difference between shooting a scene and catching hiv on set or having sex with another tested performer off camera during a period where a test says you're good to work? between cameron bay and rod daily one of them caught it and passed it to the other. there's no way, in my opinion, they caught hiv in two separate incidents. obviously one person caught it doing something wrong, but they're both tied to each other. i understand why you're saying it wasn't on set, but isn't that a little misleading? it was between two tested performers.

condoms would help prevention of hiv between performers, but i think the testing protocols have to change in some way. just because you're negative one day doesn't mean you don't have it. it could show up at a later date.

I don't understand your argument. how would condoms help prevention of HIV? let me say this again, NO ONE HAS CONTRACTED HIV ON A PORN SET IN OVER 9 YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF SCENES. How much lower can you get from 0?

two tested performers contracted the virus OFF CAMERA. When they went to test so they could perform in porn scenes, they tested positive and were removed from the talent pool. No one else tested positive. Just like in 2010 with Cameron Reid.

again, just because someone has the virus, doesn't mean that he is automatically going to pass that virus on to a partner. Unless he gives her an anal creampie, shares a drug needle, or gives her a blood tranfusion with his infected blood. the HIV virus isn't easy to pass.

Darren James did like 20 something scenes in 2004 while carrying the virus. He gave it to 5 girls, all of whom he cream pied anally. the other 10-15 girls he performed with non-condom did not get the virus.

[LilyRox]

So sad in general...

I'm more disappointed with the industry instead of having compassion for these people they shame them. When many models do the same exact things, escorting, bisexual sex, and other activities. But because it's not their test that showed positive they love to point the finger!


I agree. He doesn't need the media shaming him and making him feel worse than he already does. He is not a weak person. He is a very strong person that just so happens to be sick and the last thing he should have to worry about is hundreds of people calling him out when going through treatment.

[ew86riv]

I don't understand your argument. how would condoms help prevention of HIV? let me say this again, NO ONE HAS CONTRACTED HIV ON A PORN SET IN OVER 9 YEARS AND THOUSANDS OF SCENES. How much lower can you get from 0?

two tested performers contracted the virus OFF CAMERA. When they went to test so they could perform in porn scenes, they tested positive and were removed from the talent pool. No one else tested positive. Just like in 2010 with Cameron Reid.

again, just because someone has the virus, doesn't mean that he is automatically going to pass that virus on to a partner. Unless he gives her an anal creampie, shares a drug needle, or gives her a blood tranfusion with his infected blood. the HIV virus isn't easy to pass.

Darren James did like 20 something scenes in 2004 while carrying the virus. He gave it to 5 girls, all of whom he cream pied anally. the other 10-15 girls he performed with non-condom did not get the virus.

two people who perform and get tested contracted the virus off camera presumably because one person gave it to the other. you're saying that it hasn't happened on set, but isn't that a technicality? that's the point i'm trying to make. neither one of them just caught out of the air. as you say, it is a hard virus to catch.

[ew86riv]

also cameron bay was clean according to a test done on july 27. she only re-tested because she heard about alex gonz having hepatitis c. the re-test was two weeks later i believe and that's when she found out about the hiv. had she not gone for a re-test she could've worked for another couple of weeks with the virus. would she have infected everybody she worked with? no, but it could've happened.

[GroobySteven]

Darren James did like 20 something scenes in 2004 while carrying the virus. He gave it to 5 girls, all of whom he cream pied anally. the other 10-15 girls he performed with non-condom did not get the virus.

So that's a 1:4 chance of getting it if you have anal sex with someone with HIV?

[broncofan]

Posted by Christian: "the person receiving the anal creampie has to have a low enough immune system to contract the virus"

You do not need to have low immune function to contract HIV. I am not arguing the rest of it because I don't know precisely how effective the tests are, what the exact window period is, or the precise number of times sero-discordant people have to screw for the uninfected partner to get infected.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

Here's a cdc link with some transmission statistics. There's a lot of useful stuff on this site.

Edit: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/4/1064.full
This other link says that risk of transmission from receptive anal is 1.4%, a significant number.

[broncofan]

I don't really know how anyone can reason that condom use wouldn't reduce risk. I'm not saying it should be mandatory because I think people should be allowed to make their own choices. But it must be statistically less risk to have performers tested so that the status is known to as great an extent as possible, but then use condoms to lower transmission rates.

I say status known to as great an extent as possible because if testing were infallible and there was no window period then there would be no difference in risk between condom and no condom use as long as people were tested right before sex. But we know that's not currently the case.

[christianxxx]

So that's a 1:4 chance of getting it if you have anal sex with someone with HIV?

no i am saying its 0:15 for vaginal and 1:1 for receptive anal creampie in that specific Darren James instance from 2004

also the same holds true for Marc Wallice in 1998 with his faked tests, none of the girls who had vaginal sex with him contracted the virus and 100 percent of the 8 girls he did anal creampies with did contract it in that specific instance

[LibertyHarkness]

humans will be humans thats the problem ... as a model you never really know what other people are upto off camera ..

I escort and because of that there are models in the uk that will not shoot with me ... Yet these same models are plastered all over swinging sites lol .. irony eh :)

[christianxxx]

also cameron bay was clean according to a test done on july 27. she only re-tested because she heard about alex gonz having hepatitis c. the re-test was two weeks later i believe and that's when she found out about the hiv. had she not gone for a re-test she could've worked for another couple of weeks with the virus. would she have infected everybody she worked with? no, but it could've happened.

no, how is she giving the virus to anyone on set? transmission female to male vaginally is extremely extremely extremely low and anally not much higher....

i see your point, but its more valid using Rod Daily as the example. Thankfully these are fringe performers who work 2-3 times a week at most. The biggest fear in the straight biz is one of the top males who work 6-7 times a week contracts the virus and becomes able to infect others early in his valid test window.

[christianxxx]

I don't really know how anyone can reason that condom use wouldn't reduce risk. I'm not saying it should be mandatory because I think people should be allowed to make their own choices. But it must be statistically less risk to have performers tested so that the status is known to as great an extent as possible, but then use condoms to lower transmission rates.

I say status known to as great an extent as possible because if testing were infallible and there was no window period then there would be no difference in risk between condom and no condom use as long as people were tested right before sex. But we know that's not currently the case.

both condoms AND testing reduces risk. unfortunately, non condom scenes produce more sales for all companies across the board. ultimately consumers believe no condoms in a scene is a fantasy that they want to see. that fact (or that producers believe its a fact) means non-condom porn will be in demand forever. If condoms are made mandatory and enforced in California, you will see producers move to Vegas, then Miami, then London, then Australia, then the next location. Once Pandora's box has been opened, its not going to close. Again, this isn't for everyone, there are companies who will become 100 percent condom just to get away from the government scrutiny, but the majority of companies will simply figure out a way to get around it.

[Wendy Summers]

So that's a 1:4 chance of getting it if you have anal sex with someone with HIV?

You may want to break out your computer and recheck your math calculating that probability...

http://www.pc-history.org/TRS80mod3.gif

[BigBlackMan]

Don't escort

Don't go around sticking your penis in mold

[BigBlackMan]

humans will be humans thats the problem ... as a model you never really know what other people are upto off camera ..

I escort and because of that there are models in the uk that will not shoot with me ... Yet these same models are plastered all over swinging sites lol .. irony eh :)

Time for a "career" change.

[GroobySteven]

no i am saying its 0:15 for vaginal and 1:1 for receptive anal creampie in that specific Darren James instance from 2004



You said he has sex with 15-20 girls and 5 of them got HIV?

[christianxxx]

yes all the ones that did anal creampies got the virus, the ones that he had vaginal sex with did not nor did the male performers in group scenes

[broncofan]

both condoms AND testing reduces risk. unfortunately, non condom scenes produce more sales for all companies across the board. ultimately consumers believe no condoms in a scene is a fantasy that they want to see. that fact (or that producers believe its a fact) means non-condom porn will be in demand forever. If condoms are made mandatory and enforced in California, you will see producers move to Vegas, then Miami, then London, then Australia, then the next location. Once Pandora's box has been opened, its not going to close. Again, this isn't for everyone, there are companies who will become 100 percent condom just to get away from the government scrutiny, but the majority of companies will simply figure out a way to get around it.
You're right. Regulating it too hard will only move the business elsewhere. I read on one of these sites that some activists want to eliminate bareback scenes based on work safety type laws. But one thing about work safety is that these laws have never been to make employment as safe as possible. Their purpose is to make work safe to a reasonable degree.

While bareback sex is unsafe for the general population because we don't always know who we're having sex with, in porn the risk is much less. Someone literally needs to be in that window period and given the mandatory testing it is likely to be contained once there's a positive test. While it's far from perfect, there are a great number of industries where the threat to workers' life expectancy is much greater. A risk to be sure, but people are allowed to take those.

[TSLoverIB]

Yeh those numbers do not sound right........ 2004 Zero Porn Stars?

[TSLoverIB]

a test that is 2 days old obviously vastly reduces the possibility that someone is or isn't HIV positive at the time of the test. more tests further back give a better picture of someone's health history.

Rally Cola couldn't be more wrong. That kind of argument is like going into a grocery store, buying a lottery ticket, and thinking you are going to actually win.

Getting infected with HIV isn't that easy to do. Think about this, since we started testing in 1999 and then added clam/gon testing and added syphilis/hep c tests, and some companies have made 14 day tests mandatory...how many scenes do you think have been shot?

a million? 2 million? and there have been ZERO positive HIV transmission cases since 2004. ZERO. Testing works...and will always work.

Rod Daily and Cameron Bay contracted HIV off camera in their private lives. When they wanted to do a scene, the testing clinic caught them, and they are now not allowed to work.

Let me say that again, testing works. ZERO on set HIV transmissions in over 9 years with hundreds of porn scenes shot every day!

Sorry man you seem to be delusional, i think it is safer buying a lottery ticket as you stated, haha. You stated ZERO, so none of your performers have sex with gay or bi porn stars? I hope not, because according to several articles OVER 50-60% of Gay adult stars are HIV+ in 2012. Your risk keeps getting higher, much higher then zero.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/08/must_porn_stars_get_tested/

[christianxxx]

i am saying that since 2004 zero point zero HIV transmissions have occurred on a porn set

of course they are working with gay or bi porn stars, which helps my point - all of those scenes and again zero point zero HIV transmissions since 2004.

where did I say my risk was zero? huh? surely you don't think i believe that i have zero risk when i shoot a scene whether its condom or not...there is always risk. jesus man

[MrsKellyPierce]

Sex again is dangerous period..why do people love to throw stones when they live in glass houses?

If someone worked in a steel factory there is a chance they will get hurt.

If someone works as a police officer there is a chance they will get hurt.

When you have an abundance of sex whether in the industry or not there is a chance you will get something!

That's just FACTS.

I feel the numbers are pretty damn low for as many scenes we do a year as an industry.

If you have one night stands on the regular and then never get tested you have no room to talk.

If you cheat with a transsexual/female/gay escort and then go home to your wife with out getting tested you have no room to talk.

If you have never been tested at all but have sex regularly you have no room to talk.

Most people never get tested and if they do it's one or two times in their lives or when they are scared.

The sex industry is dangerous in general it's up to each performer to decide as well how safe they feel.

If I saw a male model I thought looked sketchy I didn't perform with him.

I would research his background.

I also expected the test to be taken right before the shoot not the 28 day period. A lot can happen in those 28 days. People have personal lives, escort, could do drugs, and more.

Condoms are a preventative mostly against pregnancy and possibly HIV..it's not the cure all.

Testing is!

Why people are so against testing is beyond me..when free clinics test for free all the time!

I don't understand why this debate goes on and on. Why we point fingers or even why we are surprised an infection gets in!

When someone is working a lot in the industry and then on top of it escorting or having a private life it brings up the chances of EXPOSURE to infection IMMENSELY..

We are going to continue to have these problems no matter what we do!

[LilyRox]

I agree 28 day testing is too damn long. Better than nothing, but still too long. Like you said some of the girls get around daily.

[DoMeNow]

Well said Kelly - the voice of reason:-)

I just got myself a copy of Transex Domination, in which you are somewhat fantastic - it hasn't been out of the DVD player since I got it. Thank you

[VictoriaVeil]

Sorry man you seem to be delusional, i think it is safer buying a lottery ticket as you stated, haha. You stated ZERO, so none of your performers have sex with gay or bi porn stars? I hope not, because according to several articles OVER 50-60% of Gay adult stars are HIV+ in 2012. Your risk keeps getting higher, much higher then zero.
http://www.salon.com/2012/09/08/must_porn_stars_get_tested/


The gay porn stars you are referring to perform in companies like Treasure Island Media where the are paired with other HIV Positive performers... This category doesnt affect transmission rates as they were Positive BEFORE they started performing.

[Tyler___Durden]

Commercially and recreationally
I've had sex with a number of people who are HIV+.
(They are most likely unaware they are HIV+)
That's a simple case statistical likelihood.
It's a scary thought, on one level.
On another level, my sexual behaviour minimises the risk
of STI transmission to me.
The only other alternatives are to:
1. Have only one sexual long term partner
and be very reasonably sure they don't play away.
Or
2. Have zero sexual partners.

I don't see any difference between Escorting, swinging or porn shoots.
It's all essentially sex with strangers.
In porn, testing slants things to keeping the person safe
as there is no mandatory testing for swinging or Escorting.

I just assume everyone I have sex with is HIV+
and adjust my behaviours accordingly.

I also generally manoeuvre things:
"God, you fucking me is so hot.
(Manoeuvre them off me while removing the condom,
deeply and lustfully look into their eyes)
Now I want you to spunk all over my tits!"
Works every time. :)
I totally don't want my partners to
climax inside me because a spilt condom
=My personal mandatory 28 day course of PEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-exposure_prophylaxis),
which is has really vile side effects, during this period.


Bareback - My two experiences, ever
One time where a condom broke
the other time a guy removed the condom.
In both cases I assumed they were HIV+ with a high viral load
and went on a course of PEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-exposure_prophylaxis)within 24 hours.
A very nasty 28 course of meds
but far better than getting HIV.

[kukm4]

New HIV Case Detected, Moratorium Reinstated--UPDATED

http://business.avn.com/articles/video/New-HIV-Case-Detected-Moratorium-Reinstated-UPDATED-528786.html

[LibertyHarkness]

and now a 4th performer has tested positive as well yesterday http://www.xbiz.com/news/168642

amazing 4 people thus far in 3weeks ... start taking bets on if more will pop up now too ..not good indeed .

[christianxxx]

um Liberty, thats a bullshit article that is completely not true.

Michael Weinstein is the head of an anti-porn group called the AIDS Healthcare Foundation who hate our business.

All performers test through CET or TTS and if they didn't report a new positive case to the FSC, then its not a real performer.

This is grandstanding by Weinstein as he wants to lengthen the moratorium and get new press. There is a possibility that a gay porn star tested positive, but again its a completely bullshit article.

stating again, there is no 4th positive in the straight porn industry.

[VictoriaVeil]

my question is why would XBIZ publish such a story without confirmation, particularly since they cover the adult industry and such a story would cause people to halt production which means less to share with their audience? (sigh)

[GroobySteven]

Dear PASS Participants,
As promised, we are sending out updates as soon as information is available.
First, I would like to address the rumors of a fourth performer testing positive for HIV. None of the testing facilities, nor the doctors associated with the facilities, have any results of a fourth performer testing positive. This information came from AHF, which is currently trying to push regulation on the industry and has, on many occasions, reported false information to the media to advance their political agenda. Just last month AHF started a media frenzy and industry scare over false information of a positive syphilis result claiming an “outbreak” when in reality no performers were positive for syphilis. It is extremely likely that this situation is more posturing for AHF’s political agenda. Again, we have no evidence of a fourth performer testing positive for HIV.
As far as the partner identification for the third performer is concerned, all first generation partners have been identified and have retested. Results for all of the performers but one are back and all results are negative. The final result will be back tomorrow. The doctors associated with our testing facilities will teleconference tomorrow to discuss the results and next steps concerning performer testing and the moratorium.
Finally, to address some additional rumors, the doctors have confirmed that the third performer did not work with Ms. Bay or Mr. Daily.
We will continue to provide updates as we receive additional information. Thank you so much for your patience and cooperation.
— Diane Duke, CEO, Free Speech Coalition

[tommy001]

I wonder will there ever be a cure for HIV? I'm not being nosey but would many of the girls here get checked often? It is scarey to think about HIV but it is there and hopefully a cure will be found.

[LibertyHarkness]

tommy all adult models in the usa/uk/eu will get tested at least monthly if they are shooting ...

If a girl is just an escort who knows , but then how often do civiilans get tested ?

[tommy001]

Libby i know exactly what you're saying with the ordinary person on the street. It would be a difficult one to change because we all seem to push these things to the back of our minds. The adult models testing is good to hear. But as you say the escorts might need to think about that as well.

[LibertyHarkness]

thing is do the clients test that visit escorts ? its a 2way street, but then thats why escorts wrap it up :)

[Silcc69]

I'm going to watch a Christian bareback scene asap.

[VictoriaVeil]

every thirty days ... sometimes more frequently tommy.... how bout you?

[christianxxx]

btw Seanchai - the 3rd positive person was the roommate of Cameron Bay, and although they never worked together.....lol #politics

[bluesoul]

every thirty days ... sometimes more frequently tommy.... how bout you?

what if tommy doesn't have sexual intercourse as frequently and with multiple partners as adult entertainers or sex workers. do you still think he should text every thirty days or more frequently?

[VictoriaVeil]

what if tommy doesn't have sexual intercourse as frequently and with multiple partners as adult entertainers or sex workers. do you still think he should text every thirty days or more frequently?

The standard for "Civilians" is once every ninety days. Which gives plenty of time to infect multiple partners and their partners to infect people without anyone knowing whats happened. So What do you think, Should Tommy test more frequently? Thats for Tommy to decide.


http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/HIVtesting/images/riska_626px.jpg

[TSLoverIB]

I wonder will there ever be a cure for HIV? I'm not being nosey but would many of the girls here get checked often? It is scarey to think about HIV but it is there and hopefully a cure will be found.

Well people could only hope, but logical thinking will result in realizing there is not money in "Cures" Only treatments.

If a drug company will make 7.1 billion a year in drug treatment sales, how much will cures bring if everyone is cured and no longer needs drugs, Sad..

Some believe that a cure already exists, maybe a cure will come to light.

[LibertyHarkness]

they will cure hiv and then within 2years release another condition that needs treatments :)

[TSLoverIB]

they will cure hiv and then within 2years release another condition that needs treatments :)

Liberty, i could have not said it better, i think you are exactly right.
I remember a few years ago, there were two cases of women from Africa in the NYC hospital, with a SEVERE drug resistant case of HIV, I believe they were calling it HIV-3, they had died, now it seems it is up to hundreds and not sure if how many have died.

http://www.prn.org/index.php/prn_news/news/drug_resistant_hiv_transmission_is_increasing_in_n yc_immigrant_populations

They may as you stated cure HIV, but another super bug needing treatment will arise.

The Days of free sex will be long gone, if they come back, maybe only for a little while before something comes along.

[TSLoverIB]

On another note, when HIV was first coming out, i remember, i was so young, people were so scared, not sure how it was transmitted, the effect, in school, it was all over the classes. I remember asking a doctor years later after they found out how it was transmitted, how it was spread, how they claim it came to be.
And i remember the doctor answering, i asked him after he spoke to our high school class, at that time it was speculated it was created in a lab.
I asked him, why someone would create something like this, i barley remember who he was, but his ANSWER:
He stated POPULATION CONTROL.

Which is FUCKING SAD if it is true.....

[bellamy]

On another note, when HIV was first coming out, i remember, i was so young, people were so scared, not sure how it was transmitted, the effect, in school, it was all over the classes. I remember asking a doctor years later after they found out how it was transmitted, how it was spread, how they claim it came to be.
And i remember the doctor answering, i asked him after he spoke to our high school class, at that time it was speculated it was created in a lab.
I asked him, why someone would create something like this, i barley remember who he was, but his ANSWER:
He stated POPULATION CONTROL.

Which is FUCKING SAD if it is true.....


ok lets all put on our tin foil hats and stock up on water and ammo for when "they" come for us

[serial138]

Well people could only hope, but logical thinking will result in realizing there is not money in "Cures" Only treatments.

If a drug company will make 7.1 billion a year in drug treatment sales, how much will cures bring if everyone is cured and no longer needs drugs, Sad..

Some believe that a cure already exists, maybe a cure will come to light.

Your economic theory there is not sound my friend. Sure, you can make 7 billion treating a cold now, or you could make 50 billion a year for a couple years with residuals of around 1 billion by curing it. Remember, new babies every day, they'll need the vaccine too. While you have the patent rights and are the only one to market you could clean up financially. You then funnel that 50 billion a year (for probably 2 or 3 years before everyone has it) into other investment vehicles, be they other pharma products or financial investments, and now you can make a far better return than a paltry 7 billion a year flat.

Remember, treatments are offered by multiple companies, so price elasticity is limited. If all you're doing is treating symptoms you can't charge more than the next guy doing the same thing. But if you're the only cure, you can charge a lot more.

[TSLoverIB]

Your economic theory there is not sound my friend. Sure, you can make 7 billion treating a cold now, or you could make 50 billion a year for a couple years with residuals of around 1 billion by curing it. Remember, new babies every day, they'll need the vaccine too. While you have the patent rights and are the only one to market you could clean up financially. You then funnel that 50 billion a year (for probably 2 or 3 years before everyone has it) into other investment vehicles, be they other pharma products or financial investments, and now you can make a far better return than a paltry 7 billion a year flat.

Remember, treatments are offered by multiple companies, so price elasticity is limited. If all you're doing is treating symptoms you can't charge more than the next guy doing the same thing. But if you're the only cure, you can charge a lot more.


Your argument is valid but economically speaking even your reasoning is faulty. If one company can bring in profits for treatments at 7 billion a year in drug treatments. A cure, vaccine would bring in a one time cost. Say currently a HPV vaccine in place of HIV is $2000 one time insurance cost. Yet one company can charge to TREAT one patient $2500 a month in medicine. This would be a cost lowered in years of course since patients in the 80s and 90;s were paying much more. Some patients have been on treatment with AZT, the cocktails, etc etc, for FIFTEEN YEARS. Lets say one patient, $2500 or More in Past Years Per Month X 180 Months = $450,000 PER patient. With your argument, you believe a company would charge someone half a million for a cure? Even if someone gets recently infected, and current medicine costs the same. Sorry, NOT HAPPENING, Sounds like treatment is the sick way to go in a business standpoint. Lets take a private company a one time grant cost of 20 Billion to the first company to find a cure for cancer, HIV. Yet cancer brings in 1 billion a YEAR in treatments. Why has no private company found one? because its to hard to find? Because not enough people have died yet?

Intelligent individuals know exactly why....

[serial138]

I should have known better than to argue with a conspiracy theorist.

You forget that treatment only affects those who have the disease, while a preventive measure such as a vaccine can be administered to the entire world population. The CDC says that there are currently 35 million people living with HIV around the world. World population is 7 billion. Which target market would you prefer to have a product aimed at, 35million, or 7 billion?

But lets say that between now and 15 years from now the number of HIV cases triples to 105 million. That's unlikely to happen but just for shits and grins lets go ahead and make that assumption. And we'll also assume everyone pays $30,000 a year for treatment, going off your $2500 a month number. Not figuring inflation, price erosion, or any of a host of other variables in, you get about $47.3 trillion for treatment if that 105 million cases was treated the whole 15 years. Now lets say 3 billion of the world's 7 billion people get a one time treatment for $30,000. That comes out to $90 trillion. Which one would appeal more to the greedy corporations you think?

In addition, you've noted that one patient paying $2500 a month for 15 years is $450,000. You also mentioned that the price is declining, so that $2500 can be expected to decline further, eroding your $450,000 to even less than that. That is not a good investment. Companies want to keep margins up, not see their goods become commodities. And especially in Pharmaceutical companies, generics manufacturers are ready to eat those margins up as soon as the patent expires, so you need to get your money in before it does.

If you do any basic time value of money computation you can determine that any investment returning only 3% (basically just a tiny amount more than inflation) over that same period would yield $567,000. You're going to tell me the greedy company is going to settle for $450,000 (or less because of price erosion) instead of getting $567,000? What about investing it and getting a 5% return, and yielding $676,000 over that 15 year period? Any company would be happy to be able to get their investment out of treating HIV and reinvest in bigger returns.

What was that about intelligent individuals now? For someone who has Gordon Gecko in his avatar, you are extremely naïve about finance and economics.

[bluesoul]

The standard for "Civilians" is once every ninety days. Which gives plenty of time to infect multiple partners and their partners to infect people without anyone knowing whats happened. So What do you think, Should Tommy test more frequently? Thats for Tommy to decide.



i don't get what you're saying. i was saying "if tommy doesn't have sex" then you said the standard is to test every 90 days. so if tommy comes within 0 sexual contact or blood transmission he is to test every 90 days?

my point was that if tommy is having less frequent intercourse (than sex workers/porn performers) he need not test as frequently- but if he's having more sexual contact than (then mentioned people) then he is to test more.

let's take a different analogy. if someone rides to motorcycle everyday then they should wear a helmet everyday. if you don't ride a motorcycle at all, do you require a helmet?

[Tyler___Durden]

The standard for "Civilians" is once every ninety days. Which gives plenty of time to infect multiple partners and their partners to infect people without anyone knowing whats happened.
Really?
No chance.
Looking at everyone who doesn't get paid to have sex,
the vast majority of the sexually active population with multiple partners, never get tested, ever.
I was at my National Health Service GUM clinic today, and by mistake
I was given a few minutes with a doctor, rather than just the nurse for
conducting my tests. After confirming all the details held on 'puter still applied,
I asked the doc about the breakdown of people attending their GUM/GUM's across the UK.
She said that a third attend because of symptoms.
Of the two thirds that attend with no symptoms, there is a lot of illogical thought processes. Such as people who have started a sexual relationship with a new partner, wishing to get tested to confirm all is well. As opposed to getting tested before getting sexual with the new partner.
Porn performers are almost unheard of because they mostly go for tests at private clinics.
There are some Escorts.
Swingers/people with multiple sexual partners are in the minority. The true figure for this group may well be higher because people don't always tell the truth.
Looking at the many hundreds of clients I've had,
I am certain that the vast majority have NEVER had an STI test.
Of the few that have, the testing is at best sporadic or a one-off.
An Escort or a Porn performer who tests regularly and always practices safer-sex, is a far safer shag than a random pick up in a club or bar.

[TSLoverIB]

let's take a different analogy. if someone rides a motorcycle everyday then they should wear a helmet everyday. if you don't ride a motorcycle at all, do you require a helmet?

Good Point, I am not a sex worker so i can not advice a good testing regimen.

[VictoriaVeil]

@Tyler Yes Really. The US Fed Government allows actually will pay for testing every three months. Thats what I was referring too when I said thats the standard. I believe everyone should get tested, its responsible, and AS I just mentioned, people can do it for free - every three months.

Now whether people do or not is an entirely different scenario. That relates to personal choices and in my mind irresponsible ones; which actually leads to spreading all STD's.

@bluesoul: Say tommy got tested two weeks after he had sex and was negative for STD's. He goes six months between encounters. Because it was less frequent is he still not potentially dangerous to his second partner? Of course he is, It generally takes more than 14 days for HIV to show up in a test. THats why I am advocating that people take advantage of whats available to get tested.

As for the analogy, I don't really follow. It seems that it would correspond better to wearing a condom every time a person has sex, not whether some should get tested regularly. #IMO

[Tyler___Durden]

Ah ok but immaterial.
I'm in the UK where testing is free, even if you go get tested 4 times a day!!!
The point is that people (civilians) generally don't bother getting tested at all.
That's why I assume they all have AIDS and I act accordingly.

And seat belts don't work either, if people don't wear them.

[Prospero]

I think that rule should apply for all Tyler.... and anyone who goes to an escort and has bareback with them should realise that if the escort offers that, then they are probably positive - whether they know it or not. It's an expensive game of Russian roulette.

[VictoriaVeil]

Thats what I was getting at Tyler. My point is they should.


Ah ok but immaterial.
I'm in the UK where testing is free, even if you go get tested 4 times a day!!!
The point is that people (civilians) generally don't bother getting tested at all.
That's why I assume they all have AIDS and I act accordingly.

And seat belts don't work either, if people don't wear them.

[bluesoul]

@bluesoul: Say tommy got tested two weeks after he had sex and was negative for STD's. He goes six months between encounters. Because it was less frequent is he still not potentially dangerous to his second partner? Of course he is, It generally takes more than 14 days for HIV to show up in a test. THats why I am advocating that people take advantage of whats available to get tested.

As for the analogy, I don't really follow. It seems that it would correspond better to wearing a condom every time a person has sex, not whether some should get tested regularly. #IMO

i don't think you're understanding what i'm saying.

[MrsKellyPierce]

This is scary I didn't know this about the gay industry.

I think we should all have the same universal testing, but when I suggested that this is what I was informed with.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Wow at this Ricky Larkin article salute to him

http://therealpornwikileaks.com/walking-away-happy-healthy-humble-oped-ricky-larkin/

[CaptainPlanet]

This is scary I didn't know this about the gay industry.

I think we should all have the same universal testing, but when I suggested that this is what I was informed with.

Crazy story Kelly.

Since Alot of Gay performers work in the TS niche, wouldn't that bring the risk up?

[VictoriaVeil]

i don't think you're understanding what i'm saying.


Apparently Not. :geek:

[Tyler___Durden]

I think that rule should apply for all Tyler.... and anyone who goes to an escort and has bareback with them should realise that if the escort offers that, then they are probably positive - whether they know it or not. It's an expensive game of Russian roulette.
Yep, totally.

Any time some caller asks for BB, I say:
"Sure, but I only have BB anal sex with clients who have done BB Anal with other escorts"
--"Ok that's fine"
"And you'll have to sign an insurance waver, coz the last 8 clients who had BB with me all caught AIDS*
and died and this is to prevent your next of kin suing either me or my insurance company after you die too."
--"You haven't really got AIDS?"
"No but there's an 87%** likelihood that you Have, ...bye"
and add them to my BLOCKED LIST.
I would hope this will prompt them to alter their sexual behaviour and go get tested, but who knows....
I then stop thinking about them and their current & future partners
but in hindsight it's dreadfully sad.


*You don't catch AIDS, rather you get infected with HIV which {without continuous treatment of PEP meds, for life} weakens the immune system and you die from secondary infections, but I don't think these callers appreciate the distinction, nor care...

**Made up stat.
A huge range of factors determine % likelihood of transmission,
from whether the other person is infected or not (obviously) through to factors which apply if they are HIV+:
Like the HIV+ persons viral load, Anal or vaginal sex, Whether the HIV+ person is penetrating or penetrated, In the case of HIV+ men and trans whether they are circumcised or not, Whether there was any bleeding or tears (even microscopic ones) If the immune system of the other person is compromised by another infection such as even a bad cold, and so on.

[Tyler___Durden]

This is scary I didn't know this about the gay industry.
I think we should all have the same universal testing, but when I suggested that this is what I was informed with.
I noticed an earlier post which talks about studios for HIV+ performers
with presumably the view that as everyone is HIV+ there is no risk from
BB performances.

There are huge risks.
Firstly because there are different strands of HIV. So if an HIV+ person
gets infected with another strand, this will necessitate a change in PEP meds.
This usually involves a much bigger cocktail of PEP meds. For life.
And the drug effectiveness drops, the more complicated the HIV infection base is.
Also because BB sex can lead to transmission of other STI's like syphilis and gonorrhoea.
Any further infection on top of HIV, compromises the immune system
and reduces the effectiveness of the anti viral drugs which were
initially keeping the original HIV infection in check.

I've got no medical training (I had to spell-check the STI words!!!)
and all my thoughts on this thread are from things I've read
and numerous discussions with the medical staff in my GUM clinic.
It's all so complicated.
At least the decision process and physical action of using condoms is a lot easier,
or my head would explode!

[MrsKellyPierce]

Out on the gay industry

http://www.out.com/entertainment/2007/07/23/baring-truth?page=0%2C1

[TSLoverIB]

I should have known better than to argue with a conspiracy theorist.

You forget that treatment only affects those who have the disease, while a preventive measure such as a vaccine can be administered to the entire world population. The CDC says that there are currently 35 million people living with HIV around the world. World population is 7 billion. Which target market would you prefer to have a product aimed at, 35million, or 7 billion?

But lets say that between now and 15 years from now the number of HIV cases triples to 105 million. That's unlikely to happen but just for shits and grins lets go ahead and make that assumption. And we'll also assume everyone pays $30,000 a year for treatment, going off your $2500 a month number. Not figuring inflation, price erosion, or any of a host of other variables in, you get about $47.3 trillion for treatment if that 105 million cases was treated the whole 15 years. Now lets say 3 billion of the world's 7 billion people get a one time treatment for $30,000. That comes out to $90 trillion. Which one would appeal more to the greedy corporations you think?

In addition, you've noted that one patient paying $2500 a month for 15 years is $450,000. You also mentioned that the price is declining, so that $2500 can be expected to decline further, eroding your $450,000 to even less than that. That is not a good investment. Companies want to keep margins up, not see their goods become commodities. And especially in Pharmaceutical companies, generics manufacturers are ready to eat those margins up as soon as the patent expires, so you need to get your money in before it does.

If you do any basic time value of money computation you can determine that any investment returning only 3% (basically just a tiny amount more than inflation) over that same period would yield $567,000. You're going to tell me the greedy company is going to settle for $450,000 (or less because of price erosion) instead of getting $567,000? What about investing it and getting a 5% return, and yielding $676,000 over that 15 year period? Any company would be happy to be able to get their investment out of treating HIV and reinvest in bigger returns.

What was that about intelligent individuals now? For someone who has Gordon Gecko in his avatar, you are extremely naïve about finance and economics.

You have a decent thinking mind, i am not a conspiracy theorist, Did i insult you in my previous comments? NO
I am a REALIST.
You believe they will charge $30,000 for a cure? What world do you live in.
You are wishful thinking , I am naive about finance and economics ? haha

Try to find ONE company charging $30,000 for a HPV Vaccine.

You believe 35 Million are currently infected ?
You think everyone infected has been accounted for ?
Welcome TO THE REAL WORLD.......

Buy the time drug companies start pumping out drugs, and all companies begin making it, no insurance company would ever pay that.

So lets speak now with realism, 7 billion people, and as you stated say 3 billion get the vaccine, at even $5,000 which is unlikely, as it will be much lower is a ONE Time cost of $35 Trillion.
Now as you stated 35 million are currently infected that they KNOW OF, so lets say 50 Million total.
Treatment, lets not say $2500 Per Month, Lets say even as low as Charging $1500 a Month X 12 Months = $18,000 X 50 Million people is $9 Trillion.

So let us review
One Time Cost : $35 Trillion in Profits
Treating 50 Million yearly:$9 Trillion YEARLY
Now Lets not forget AZT was approved in 1987, and today is 2013
And that is how many years?

So once again, your math just does not justify what has been made in profits of since the first treatment rolled out in 1987, as well as current greed, even with inflation in minds of drug companies.


One FANTASTIC Update as well, as i previously posted.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/13/vaccine-eradicates-virus-that-causes-aids-in-monkeys/

A Step Closer hopefully...

[serial138]

If I insulted you before, I apologize. That was not my intention.

I'm not following your logic about more infections than what the CDC is reporting. You want to assume that 50 million cases are treated yearly when only 35 million cases are reported. So the extra 15 million cases nobody knows of, they're just taking the treatment for fun? Or if they aren't reported, then how are they getting these expensive treatments monthly? Do they even know they're infected? Are drug companies shipping treatment drugs and not telling anyone? While I could grant you there is a decent number of cases not accounted for because of timing errors and miscommunication, I doubt that number is almost one and a half times the size of the currently reported infections.

Also your math is a bit off. 3 billion people getting a $5000 treatment is $15 trillion, not $35 trillion. You gave the entire world population the vaccine. But 50 million people getting a $1500 treatment monthly comes out to $900 billion annually as well. So if we stick with your numbers, in a 15 year span getting $15 trillion this year and never receiving a dime again comes out to about $23.37 trillion at 3% annually. If you start with $900 billion now (I'll spot you an extra year here for money in the bank) and do 15 annual payments of $900 billion and compound the interest you get a return of $18.14 trillion. I'm thinking most drug companies would be happy with the one time payment that nets them over $5 trillion more.

Now I will grant you treatment has made a ton of money in the past, but as any financier can tell you, past performance does not guarantee future success. All that money has been made, and spent, already. Never assume because a venture was profitable in the past means it will remain that way. You can't make money off the past, only the future.

Not even talking money wise though, no company would be crazy enough not to pursue a cure like a vaccine. Remember you can't give a vaccine to someone who already has the disease, it does nothing for them. You still get to rake in your treatment money AND make a ton of cash immediately. And even if you are big evil corporation that doesn't want a cure so you can grow your treatment business, small greedy company that wants to make a name for itself IS going to go after that cure so they can make a ton of cash and erode your market share, possibly leap frogging you and becoming the dominant player. And lets not even consider what would happen to any company or employee found to be actively suppressing a cure.

[jm813]

Keep doing porn, whores. You'll end up like him