Well, that was a short, sweet, and thankfully brief little panic.
Last night, the Free Speech Coalition's PASS announced that the final remaining test of all first generation performers whom had shot with the performer whom had been recently infected with HIV had come up negative, like all the other tests. Thusly, it was now safe to lift the moratorium on porn production that had been imposed last Friday, and resume shooting as of today (December 13th).
In addition, FSCPASS announced that the date for acceptable tests for clearance to shoot had been rebooted to December 5th, in accordance with their protocols that production cease for two weeks after any possible exposure to HIV. Since the infected performer's last shoot was on November 21st, the two-week latency period would fall due on Dec. 5th. (The actual positive test was confirmed on December 6th; the Aptima HIV test used by FSCPASS has a 7 to 10 day latency period for catching infected DNA. FSCPASS allows for a 2 week period for additional coverage and protection.)
So, once again, the system worked exactly as planned, and people should be celebrating...right??
You'd think so...but, there is a minority but growing number of skeptics around the porn disapora who aren't so sure that lifting the moratorium this soon is a good idea.
Their basic argument is that the Aptima test might be well and good for initial detection and screening, there is that small chance that it may miss someone who has the HIV virus running dormant, and if that person is cleared for shooting and infects someone else, you could get a disasterous outbreak. To them, the proper protocol should be to follow up with reinforced testing of the first-gen partners in two weeks following the initial Aptima testing, and then even further testing in six to eight weeks just to be sure that the HIV virus is completely removed from the system.
And some critics of FSCPASS even go further than that; they believe that the costs of not shooting are too great, and that FSCPASS has way too much power to control production in the midst of a crisis...so, they argue that production should continue while the protocols are being followed....as long as condoms are used.
Both arguments have some bit of merit, but ultimately they both fail the smell test for me.
Argument #1 might have more merit if the dominant tests used for STI's was something like ERISA, an antibody test that did tend to miss out early cases; but Aptima has been proven to be very accurate in the screening and detection of acute cases of HIV. Plus, the new 14-day testing protocol imposed by FSCPASS all but eliminates the latency period where someone can get infected before testing and sneak through the cracks of the tests. It should also be remembered that the HIV testing protocols used by FSCPASS also include ERISA and Western Blot assays in addition to Aptima, for full coverage.
Another note is that while it is technically possible, there has been no recorded case -- even with the multiple HIV panics this year -- of any first-gen performer being cleared initially but testing positive in followup testing while shooting. Indeed, there has not even been one case, not even since the original "outbreak" of 2004, where a performer has even gotten infected on the straight side of the industry directly from a porn shoot. (And in that one case, Darren James brought his HIV infection in from the outside. No, Derrick Burts doesn't count, either, because his infection occured in a condom-only gay shoot, though allegedly not while actually shooting.)
Argument #2, on the other hand, was the argument thrown out by Porno Dan Leal after his attempted coup against FSCPASS in bucking the moratorium: "Because Immoral Productions is condom only, and none of their models were part of the first-gen list, they should have been allowed to shoot; and condom-only shops should be able to shoot content during the moratorium period. Performers gotta eat and pay their bills, you know."
That sounds more less like a concern for safety, and more a concern about not getting paid; and it also sounds like a surrender to the Condom Nazis over at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who would gladly exploit such a division to say that even industry giants think that condoms are the best form of prevention, so why not just make it mandatory and abolish bareback sex altogether??
It also ignores the basic fact that my friend Ernest Greene has argued repeatedly: you cannot have mandatory testing and mandatory condoms together, because California antidiscrimination laws do not allow for the removal or even the screening of employees for HIV. AHF's argument has long been that with condoms, you don't need testing to begin with, because barrier protection really is the only legitimate form of protection from STI's..and "safe sex" can be pretty hot, and anyone who doesn't like condoms are simply putting performers at risk of death and destruction. One look at the HIV/AIDS death toll of gay performers on their side of the industry (where condoms rather than testing is the default) will dissuade most people of that fallacy.
Thankfully, there seems to be developing a sense of unity among performers and the industry, mostly because they are finally fed up with being AHF's punching bag for the past three years, and also because after three scares this past year, the sense of urgency to do something before AHF and CalOSHA overrides them has finally soaked into their brains. Let's hope that this unity lasts by the time the next panic hits...which, if I know AHF's deep pockets and ability to buy their own instigators, probably won't be too long coming.
Quick note: It is now Friday, Dec. 13, and was so here when I posted this....but the time stamp is still based in Pacific Standard Time; thus it is stamped for Thursday. Sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteYes, let's focus on porn performers, who have testing and rigorous education and other programs to protect themselves, and ignore everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI would feel safer having sex with Nina Hartley or Katja Kassin or Mary Carey than I would someone I met in a night club.
In other news, members of the United States Military, despite their dangerous jobs, have a higher life expectancy than their same-age civilian counterparts.
Drar
Hello Drar! Long time no hear. Hope all is well.
ReplyDeleteYes, you see the essential point here. A low-risk group that makes for sensational headlines has been targeted to advance the publicity agenda of a grandstanding self-promoter who couldn't care less whether they're safe or not.
I would note re your observation about the military that there are specific reasons why they have longer life expectancies than civilians. The vast majority of military specialties are low-risk. It takes eleven support troops for every field combatant, so most service members never get anywhere near combat.
Also, the government provides life-long healthcare for veterans. You'll hear many complaints about the shortcomings of the VA, but it is the kind of safety net that, were it provided to the rest of the population, would raise life expectancies overall.
Ernest,
ReplyDeleteGood to converse with you again. It's been too long. Give my best to Nina, if you would.
Regarding service people, don't forget that they are also subject to rigorous fitness checks and do a lot of work to stay in shape which also substantially lowers health issues that the civilian population endures. The military is also purportedly cracking down on smoking and drinking among service people.
I have yet to see a fat soldier.
Drar