Get a load of this press release AHF just posted to Business Wire.com this afternoon. If only President Obama could be this aggessive.
Never mind that there hasn't even been a verification of even ONE performer testing positive for HIV, or the fact that the producer involved with the alleged "Patient Zero" has formally and publically denied that he had allowed that performer to do the shoot off a positive-confirmed test (the director said that in fact, the test was negative), and that no confirmation of any other performer being infected has been found or even any first- or second-generation confirmation tests done. When there's propaganda to be done, the truth is a natural distraction.HIV Porn Case: AHF to File Complaints with Federal & FL Health Officials against Producers
LOS ANGELES, Aug 31, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- --AHF officials will submit a health and safety complaint under Florida 'Sanitary Nuisance' statutes against Brazzers, the production company involved in the latest HIV case in the adult film industry; industry sources say male performer involved had worked directly with as many as a dozen female performers--Group also will call on the Free Speech Coalition to "stop obstructing the investigation in Los Angeles County and provide necessary information to health authorities" and will call on Los Angeles City officials to suspend all new film permits for adult films
Actually, for AHF, the truth is more like a roll of Charmin tissue. To wit:
In response to the latest reported HIV case in the adult film industry--thought to be the 23rd industry-related HIV case since 2004--AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) will host a press teleconference today, Wednesday, August 31st at 2:00 PM Pacific Time to announce the filing of a 'sanitary nuisance' health complaint with the Florida Department of Health and a similar letter of complaint with federal OSHA officials against Brazzers, the Florida-based adult film production company widely reported as the company where the infected performer was employed. Industry sources say the male performer involved had worked directly--and without condoms--with as many as a dozen female performers.Ahh...let's count the lies, shall we??
First, you have the old and tired "23 performers contracting HIV in porn since 2004" meme....which seems quite drastic. Seems, that is....until you go "inside the numbers" and find out that only 4 of those cases involved :straight" heterosexual porn performers, and NONE of them were infected directly on set. (And the only questionable one, Derrick Burts of last year, even publically stated that he was infected in a gay scene...which included a condom.) 4 were private citizens using the services of then AIM for their own purposes, and the remainders were gay male porn performers...where a fundamentally different system of less testing (and CONDOMS, TOO!!!!) was being used. Even the LA Times, who is mostly sympathetic to the condom mandate cause, was smart enough to retract that stat...but Weinstein never let such things get in his way before, now hasn't he??
And then there is the "male performer working without condoms" libel...as if it's Brazzers' fault that the performer, if he did in fact get infected, was able to continue to shoot scenes with women. Remember that the performer was working off a negative test, albeit one that wasn't from a testing facility that had gotten under the umbrella of the Free Speech Coalition's APHSS program because the latter has only gotten started this past month.
Of course, the reason why APHSS was needed in the first place was because the older regimen that had been put in place by the earlier group AIM was shattered when AIM was put out of business...largely thanks to the hard work of AHF and Cal/OSHA's nuisance suits against them. Gee..ya think that would turn out well, Mike??
"When will it end? This is yet another suspected case of HIV infection in the adult film industry. Given the wide reports, and given that Brazzers affirmatively states they do not use condoms--a violation of both state and federal health statutes--it makes sense to investigate them in the hopes of putting an end to further infections," said Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "We are filing these complaints with Florida health officials and federal OSHA officials to prompt industry compliance with employee health and safety regulations and to spur proper and thorough public health investigations of this reported incident. In addition, we are calling on the Free Speech Coalition, the adult industry-sponsored advocacy group, to stop obstructing the investigation of this incident in Los Angeles County and provide all of the necessary information to public health authorities. FSC is an advocacy group, they are not authorized to do these health investigations, and they are not qualified. The pattern of non-cooperation that has characterized the industry and led to the current situation is continuing. It is the responsibility of Los Angeles County, which has not issued any statement to this point, to demand cooperation from the adult industry. Even though the initial exposure took place in Florida, the shutdown in LA constitutes a major public health event under the law. We are also reaffirming our call on the City of Los Angeles to stop issuing new permits."
Excuse me a moment while I go through this laughing spasm.
Wait..there are FEDERAL health statutes out there that require all porn performers to use condoms?? Really, Mike?? So, what about all those damn bareback gay videos that you were selling in your Florida thrift stores recently?? Are you going to be filing federal and state complaints against those companies, too??
And this attempt at intimidating the FSC?? WOW. For an organization who has the full colluding support of the LA County health officials and Cal/OSHA, and who was able to bribe...errrrrrrrrrrrr, persuade four LA city councilmen to attempt to browbeat the LA City Attorney to force the LA film board to cancel all porn film permits until they go condom only, AND when stoned by the Attorney himself, go over his head to the California Supreme Court to get their way, to attempt to smack down FSC for "stonewalling", is chutzpah to the extreme. But to call FSC an "advocacy group" and "not qualified", and to turn the voluntary step of suspending production until all the testing is done as a "major public health event" and call for the total abolishment?? These jackals are making the words "hypocrisy" and "projection" into the understatements of the millenium...and we haven't even gotten through the second decade yet!!!
Oh, and unless Weinstein is pulling laws out of his ass as usual, I want anyone reading this to look deep into the Florida legal code and cite for me any sort of regulations where sites like Brazzers (or other home grown adult websites based in Florida) are mandated to use condoms for all of their scenes.
And also...someone please remind Mikey that organizations in California cannot be held resposible for acts of unrelated companies in Florida??
It should also be noted that none of the female performers who would potentially be affected have shot any content in California, and that the moratorium for all porn production is a voluntary preventative measure designed to protect everyone from accidental exposure while the whole situation is sorted out. Of course, the reason Weinstein wants to make it permanent is to totally break the industry so that AHF and Cal/OSHA can take over and impose his favored condom mandate plus pre-1994 testing regime...the very regime that led to umpteempt outbreaks in the past, when performers could buy and rig tests like derivatives.
One last thing, Mikey: THERE IS NO LOS ANGELES COUNTY INVESTIGATION ONGOING, BECAUSE THIS IS STRICTLY A FLORIDA SITUATION. You might want to recheck your sources on that one.
The Free Speech Coalition (FSC)--which has fiercely opposed condom use in adult films--reported over the weekend that yet another adult film performer has tested HIV positive, and as a result, the industry group itself called for a moratorium on all adult film production, "...until possible first and second-generation exposures have been identified." Sources within the adult industry also said the performer is thought to be a male and had worked directly with as many as a dozen female performers, who in turn worked with scores of other performers.
The most direct response to this particular Big Dam Lie is in two words: BULL. SHIT.
The more stacid response, though, is to simply point out that nowhere does FSC or APHSS ever call for an end to condom usage, nor do they even come close to advocating that performers who choose to use or wish their shooting partners to use condoms should be in any way discriminated against or or ostracized. They simply oppose having condom usage imposed by government fiat.
And notice the trend towards quoting unnamed "industry sources" to support Weinstein's whopping mischaracterization of both the alleged performer and his partners...as if all of them are nothing more than stupid promiscuous sluts who are incapable of protecting themselves. Until the test results come in, he knows exactly what the rest of us know: not a Goddess-damn thing.
Weinstein then goes on to pimp the LA condom mandate ordinance, which has already been debunked here before, so I won't bore you with that.
But after that, it actually gets interesting. Here's what AHF has in store for Brazzers locally:
So, in effect, Michael Weinstein is going to pay off three "responsible resident citizens" of Miami/South Beach to file a complaint with the state and local departments of health asking them to investigate and potentially shut down Brazzers as a "sanitary nusiance" for....allowing for sex acts without the use of a condom???'Sanitary Nuisance' Complaints in FloridaUnlike California or the federal government, the State of Florida does not have a specifically designated occupational safety and health division. However, there is a "sanitary nuisance" law in the Florida Statutes. AHF believes that unprotected sex in a commercial setting should, arguably, fall under the definition of a "sanitary nuisance," since Florida law defines it as "any act" that may cause disease.386.01 Sanitary nuisance.--A sanitary nuisance is the commission of any act, by an individual, municipality, organization, or corporation, or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, by an individual, municipality, organization, or corporation, by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.386.02 Duty of Department of Health.--The Department of Health, upon request of the proper authorities, or of any three responsible resident citizens, or whenever it may seem necessary to the department, shall investigate the sanitary condition of any city, town, or place in the state; and if, upon examination, the department shall ascertain the existence of any sanitary nuisance as herein defined, it shall serve notice upon the proper party or parties to remove or abate the said nuisance or, if necessary, proceed to remove or abate the said nuisance in the manner provided in s. 823.01.As such, three "responsible resident citizens" will file complaints with the Florida Department of Health asking them to investigate a sanitary nuisance--unprotected sex taking place on adult film productions in the state.There is also a Miami-Dade County "sanitary nuisance" law as well (Miami-Dade County Municipal Ordinances Chapter 26A). It uses a similar definition of "sanitary nuisance" as the state law, and it provides for the Director of the Dade County Department of Public Health to investigate nuisances.
Now...such "sanitary nuisance" regs are nomally used against those whom explicitly handle food (such as restaurants or diners) hazardous chemicals or forms of hazardous waste, or whom get close to any form of bodily fluids or internal human organs (such as medical professionals, morticians, and the like). I'm pretty damn sure that it has never been used against porn sites...but there's a first for anything.
But here's the really ironic point: for someone who says that he cares deeply about the well being and safety of porn performers so much, he's sure giving those who don't share his concern and who would much prefer the industry to be drop-kicked into either jail cells or simple nonexistence a really big hammer to sling against any and all adult sites. Imagine the Christian Right getting three like-minded citizens to file local nuisance charges against any woman running a porn site out of her home, for example. Hell, imagine Polk County Sheriff and antiporn zealout Grant Judd using that same hammer to shut down even anyone with a computer LOOKING at porn. Be careful of what you ask for, Michael, because you just might get it.
But then again, I'm guessing that since Governor Rick Scott has so shredded Florida state government as to render it unable to fulfill Weinstein's requests, and that the Miami-Dade officials have far more struggles and concerns on their hand than wet-nursing a false porn panic, he will simply do as he has done so well in Cali: exploit this to the fullest extent to shake people down for lots and lots of money for his coffers, to be shared with both the condom manufacturers who finance AHF and the crossover gay male performers -- some of whom may even be HIV+ -- that he is protecting and covering for.
Which means..this won't be the last propaganda presser we'll get from him.
I just wonder how long it will be for Florida to read him properly and give him the boot.
How disgusting -- and telling -- that the basis for AHF's charges (in this press release and at the subsequent press conference) were scurrilous rumors, gossip and scuttlebutt on adult boards and gossip sites.
ReplyDeleteThis is a man with ZERO respect for medical privacy rights. Didn't he sue AIM over medical privacy?
Although the law forbids unauthorized disclosures about a person's HIV status, in 2009, AHF was illegally provided the names, and addresses of some 5,000 HIV-positive Medi-Cal recipients from The California Department of Health Care Services.
As Paul Morris, a producer of gay porn whose company was also targeted by Weinstein), said: "[Weinstein] believes that it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to covertly funnel extremely private information about the HIV status of patients of public clinics in order to bolster the client-list of AHF. Control trumps privacy for the *good* gay."
For anyone who missed Nightline's porn-bashing AHF-stage-managed propaganda-fest last night, it's a new low, even for ABC, the network that brought us the Belladonna ambush interview a few years back. Journalism so yellow hasn't been seen since the days of William Randolph Hearst, Weinstein was positively beside himself with delight, smacking his lips over the grisly prospect of yet another HIV infection in porn and smugly dismissing even the few tepid questions raised about possible blow-back in the form of runaway production (such as the very one in question in Florida) and underground production that might result should he get his blatantly unconstitutional initiative rammed up the public's ass.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there was the requisite "ex-performer," someone I'd never seen before and doubtless supplied by Shelley Lubben and Co., to insist that all the other performers agreed with AHF on the condom mandate but were afraid of speaking out for fear of being "blacklisted."
Anyone present at the raucous Cal-OSHA hearing a couple of months ago would know that adult performers don't have a problem about speaking out. They did so with such vehemence AGAINST the condom mandate that the Cal-OSHA committee threatened repeatedly to shut the meeting down.
But not one of those performers, let alone anyone from F.S.C. or formerly of AIM got one second of airtime to rebut Weinstein's lies. Not even a token nod toward objectivity was made in ABC's shameless pandering for ratings with porn titillation while denouncing the industry in high moral tones.
Ah, but won't it be an uncomfortable moment for all the dramatis personae in this little farce if it turns out that there there really isn't a confirmed positive test, that no actual exposures took place and that the whole gang went straight to air without a hard fact to their names.
I could have warned them to wait until all the data had come in before shooting off their pie-holes, but as usual, nobody asked me, or Nina or anyone else who might actually be in a position to give such cautionary advice.
Here's some background on Gina Rodriguez, the ex-performer who was interviewed on Nightline:
ReplyDeleteWikipedia: Demi Delia
Ex-Porn Star Launches 'Talent' Agency for Celeb Mistresses
Randy Spears and wife Demi Delia divorce after two years.
She doesn't appear to be part of the Lubben crew, but her "talent agency" for tell-all ex-lovers of celebs doesn't exactly speak well of her. According to several sources, she's Randy Spears ex-wife.
Hold on a freakin' minute, Ernest....I thought that FSC had confirmed that there was a positive test, and that the negative test was from a non-APHSS approved agency. Or, did my reading skills fail me then.
ReplyDeleteIf this turns out to be a false flag and no one really is infected, then there will be some people with eggs all over their faces. Or..maybe not eggs.
Wouldn't be the first time, you know.
Anthony
Neither FSC nor anyone else has yet confirmed the patient's status as definitively HIV+, only that there is a POSSIBLE positive diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteReportedly (and unofficially), there was one positive test result, and at least one negative or inconclusive test result.
There is, as you know, a protocol by which any single positive test result can be confirmed or dismissed. The results of that follow-up testing are reportedly imminent.
As for Demi Delia, all I can say is WOW. A dossier will be forthcoming. Yes, she was married to Randy Spears.
I just watched the Nightline piece here: link
ReplyDeleteAs Ernest said, incredibly one-sided. I hadn't watched Nightline in many years, but it's certainly changed from the days when Ted Koppel would put an American general and a Sandanista official on live television and let them hash it out.
Demi Delia? I can't believe I didn't recognize her.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I can say is that she wasn't a porn performer for, as Nina says, "much more than a minute" and that was a long time ago. She may not be one of Lubben's gang but I am puzzled how they found her if not because she is, to say the least, an obscure figure and thanks to Weinstein Lubben has become the go-to agent for embittered ex bit-players from the world of XXX.
But speaking of unsolved mysteries, the bigger one surrounds the status of the "suspected HIV+ performer." The F.S.C. was merely following the standard protocol established by AIM of calling for a halt to production on the possibility that there may have been exposures, which is hardly the picture of the reckless, callous organization that Weinstein and his propagandists try to paint. In fact, F.S.C. is erring on the side of caution just as AIM used to. Any positive test, even one that later turns up false, is reason to suspend operations until all doubt has been laid to rest.
In this instance, there seems to be a fair amount of doubt. Much as the F.S.C. has tried to step up after AIM's destruction, the loss of AIM did create a collective window period in which testing reverted to something resembling the spotty conditions obtaining back in the pre-AIM era, with different performers getting different tests of different kinds from different places and no recognized single authoritative source of information concerning the safety of the talent pool overall.
Instead of waiting for the hard facts, Weinstein, visibly gleeful over the prospect of being able to capitalize on the possibility while pushing for his bogus initiative, ran with the suspicion as fact, taking his incompetent pals at The LAT and Nightline down the same path with him.
We'll all be relieved if the positive test turns up false, but what about the misery of the individual who will have been incorrectly informed of his test status? And what about the ongoing risk of a real case slipping through a net that is now wider and more porous than it used to be?
It will be cold comfort indeed to be able, should this turn out to be the case, to pound its irresponsible coverage up the collective tailpipe of AHF and all the credulous, sensationalizing media hacks who fell into line behind these vicious profiteers, They will find some way to claim the facts support their lies no matter what the facts are.
Whatever the final diagnosis in this one case, and however well-intentioned the F.S.C. has been in trying to take the high road, this business needs to start pushing back a lot harder than it has against the incoming barrage of bullshit that's being hurled at it and take the fight to the enemy instead of hunkering down in a defensive crouch.
Who are the individuals and groups behind these concerted attacks and what are their real motives? Those are questions real journalists would ask before blindly accepting one version of events from a predictable array of interested parties with a history of lies and distortions without giving so much as a minute of air to the overwhelming disagreement of those who oppose their corruption-tainted behavior throughout this whole tragically needless conflict.
There will be no happy ending to this story regardless of what ultimately comes back from the lab. It's too late for that already. Too much damage has been done in a place that was severely compromised by relentless attacks over a period of years.
The porn business will never be the same, and whatever it will become, one thing it won't be is safer than it was in 2004.
You're asking a lot of modern journalists, Ernest. I'm reminded of two things:
ReplyDelete1) Hunter S. Thompson being asked of his assessment of the actions of modern journalists, post 9/11: He responded, "The word shameful comes to mind." A shameful "orgy of flag-sucking."
2) Stephen Colbert's scathing address to the George W. Bush-era National Press Club, in which he suggested that the attendees go home and spend time working on that novel they have kicking around in their heads, the one about the intrepid reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration: "You know -- FICTION."
The term "modern journalist" is a virtual oxymoron.
ReplyDeleteThey've been replaced by splenetic bloggers, talk-radio demagogues and guys with good hair.
How can you say that it's not Brazzers fault that Patient Zero continued to work after he was infected ? Brazzers IS Miami - I'm sure he worked for one of their companies. If you see a positive test - STOP and send him home. Is that so hard ? You think they never saw a positive test until his next shoot ?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there is no "Patient Zero" as of this point. The performer in question has now tested negative, as the F.S.C. stated clearly in its latest press release. Until the entire series of tests leading up to the latest one, along with two follow-up tests, have returned results, there is no authenticated case, which is why the recommended moratorium has been lifted.
ReplyDeleteAs to Brazzers, they maintain they were never shown a positive test and would obviously not have used the performer if he had shown up on the set with a positive test.
There are still some unsolved mysteries in this situation and until they are solved, hurling of accusations contributes nothing of value.
Paulie:
ReplyDelete1) Because the executives at Manwin (Brazzers' parent company) have certified that Patient Alpha did not work for Brazzers, but for Mofos.com. Different and totally independent website.
2) That question should be directed at the testing company who performed that positive test, and why THEY didn't prompt the company that there was a "reactive" test. Perhaps they didn't know about the "positive" test until notified by the performer. Perhaps the performer didn't trust the test, and decided to go for a second opinion, and continued to shoot using his previous negative test.
In any case, everything is a moot point, since Patient Alpha has been subsequently re-tested and found to be HIV-. Anything else hence forth is mere conjecture and unsubstansiated rumor.
Anthony
BTW...I will hereby announce that any attempt to present unsubstaniated rumors or unconfirmed statements about any aspect of the testing process or the etology of this affair will be moderated strictly. This place will NOT become a vehicle for hurling unverified rumors or indiscriminate crackbacks or personal ad hominens.
ReplyDeleteI am with Ernest...until the full details and facts are revealed and all the tests are done and verified, we should suspend all judgments.
Anthony