Rod Daily tweets hes HIV Postitive

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."

Wow.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RadiusDark

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!

Is he gay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX

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.

Just hope more people weren't infected.

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

Scary stuff hope everyone is ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilyRox

Scary stuff hope everyone is ok

---

Ditto. He worked with quite a few girls.

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

Condoms. That is all.

~BB~

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.

+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.

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

exactly, hep c is a scary thing, spreading like wildfire, condoms are just a precaution not a fool proof thing.

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ew86riv

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christianxxx

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christianxxx

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

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

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

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