HIV/AIDS Skepticism

Pointing to evidence that HIV is not the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS

Porn industry proves that “HIV” is not sexually transmitted

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2009/06/13

“‘I don’t think there’s a problem right now,’ said actor, producer and director Jules Jordan. ‘It’s like people who do stunts in Hollywood. There’s a risk in anything you do.’ Jordan said he does not use condoms in filming because ‘it takes away the whole fantasy.’ . . .
Adult film stars and producers . . .  said they continue to believe the porn industry’s testing guidelines are enough to keep performers safe despite this week’s news that an adult film actress had tested positive for HIV” (Kimi Yoshino & Rong-Gong Lin II, “Porn stars at L.A. convention defend HIV tests”, Los Angeles Times, 13 June)

“The United States adult film industry produces 4,000–11,000 films and earns an estimated $9– $13 billion in gross revenues annually [1]. An estimated 200 production companies employ 1,200–1,500 performers [2]. Performers typically earn $400–$1,000 per shoot and are not compensated based on distribution or sales” (Grudzen & Kerndt, “The Adult Film Industry: Time to Regulate?” PLoS Medicine 4 #6 [2007] e126  0993-6).

The very question of what caused that film actress to test positive seems entirely open:
“Officials at the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation . . . have issued conflicting statements about when the woman’s first positive test was known, citing both June 4 and June 6. . . . What is clear is that the woman worked June 5 despite having last tested negative for HIV on April 29 . . . . she has since gotten multiple positive test results. The woman had two recent sex partners, her boyfriend and a male performer she worked with June 5. The men have tested HIV negative so far. . . . Los Angeles County officials . . . . said it would be the 22nd HIV infection in an adult industry performer since 2004. Five were detected in the outbreak five years ago that shut down production for a month. In all, health officials said 16 of the 22 are men, including 10 who were identified as having sex with other men, and six, including the most recent, are women. Given the size of the industry ‘it is pretty remarkable and a testament to the testing procedures in place’ that so few people have tested positive for HIV, said Steven Hirsch, co-founder of Vivid Entertainment, one of the largest producers of heterosexual adult films. . . . Vivid [is] a condom-optional company . . . .
But public health officials caution that the testing protocol does not adequately protect against transmission of diseases. The male porn star at the center of the 2004 outbreak, for example, had tested negative for HIV just days before working and spreading the virus to three female performers.”

Among the estimated 200 production companies, “Jessica Drake, an actress for Wicked Entertainment, . . . . works for the industry’s only heterosexual condom-mandatory production company.”

So: In 2009 a female porn actress tests positive after sex with two men who are both “HIV”-negative. In 2004, an “HIV”-negative male porn star had supposedly infected 3 females.
Over a period of 5 years, during which 20,000-55,000 films were made by 1200-1500 performers, with condoms “optional” or explicitly not used in 199 out of 200 production companies, a total of 22 positive “HIV” tests were recorded. It seems that transmitting “HIV-positive” status is a very rare occurrence when heterosexual intercourse (not only vaginal, moreover) is unprotected, at least in the adult film industry: “the vast majority of heterosexual porn movies are shot ‘bareback,’ an industry term for unprotected sex” .

In the 2004 incident, a male porn star was supposed to have infected 3 female actors, whose first- and second-generation sexual partners were tested subsequently with none found to be “HIV-positive” (Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 54 #37 [2005] 923-4).

“HIV” testing is done for the porn industry by PCR, because it can supposedly detect “infection” a couple of weeks earlier than antibody tests can; and because it is more sensitive, and therefore also used for screening blood. At the same time, it is less specific and approved only for screening and not for diagnosis (MMWR above).

Testing “HIV-positive” can come after flu vaccination, anti-tetanus shot, pregnancy, tuberculosis, surgery, and because of dozens of other “cross-reactions”.

***************

Pretend you are an alien visiting this planet. Would you ascribe to sexual transmission, sometimes from “HIV”-negative partners, those 4.4 cases per year of “HIV-positive” in the porn industry, or would you ascribe them to cross-reactions and coincidences?

Again as an alien, how would you rate the rationality of the beings who interpret these numbers as sexual transmission during the speculated period of a few weeks during which a person may be infected but not “HIV-positive”? From the “HIV”-negative individuals who had evidently caught that “infection” somewhere other than in the work-place, even though the overwhelming amount of intercourse by porn-performers occurs in that work-place?

**************

Camp followers of the HIV/AIDS dogma, of course, speak in absolutist terms and with scant regard for probabilities or evidence. Thus “a spokesman for the state [CA] Division of Occupational Safety and Health” complained that the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation “has never been cooperative with us and our investigations; . . . .’You’d think they’d want to be a full partner in trying to prevent the spread of this disease,’ said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, health officer for Los Angeles County. . . . ‘This industry screams for regulation,’ said Michael Weinstein, president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation. ‘Cal-OSHA needs to require that condoms be used in any film. Yesterday.’”

They are worried so frantic because “With some of the nation’s largest pornography producers based in the Valley, any disease has the potential to spread quickly”.

Yet the clear fact of the matter is that “HIV” has not spread, let alone quickly, in this very “high-risk” group. The surveillance is unmatched anywhere else. Performers have to be tested every 30 days by the same sensitive (and thereby not-very-specific) test as is used for blood donations. A total of 22 positive tests have been reported in 5 years among 1200-1500 people tested 12 times a year, thus about 72,000-90,000 tests. Since the number of films made was between 20,000 and 55,000, one may infer reasonably that the number of acts of intercourse will have been of that same order of magnitude, so also comparable to the number of tests. So in a high-risk group that predominantly practices unsafe sex, and where the “potential to spread rapidly” is great, the observed rate of testing “HIV-positive” is maybe something like 5 in 10,000, certainly well under 1 per 1000.

No wonder that the people most directly involved are quite unworried: the porn stars supposedly at risk of contracting a deadly incurable disease; the producers (some of them retired stars themselves) who hire them and would certainly be at considerable financial risk if an infected performer sued them for being obliged to perform without protection; and the officials of the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation, whose co-founder is also a former star with 2000 films to her credit. All of them seem to understand the significance of actual evidence and experience, unlike the AIDS “activists” and official healthcare personnel whose knowledge comes not from experience but from indoctrination into HIV/AIDS dogma.

23 Responses to “Porn industry proves that “HIV” is not sexually transmitted”

  1. Michael said

    How very telling that “the observed rate of testing “HIV-positive” is maybe something like 5 in 10,000”, when that is fairly close to the same rate that HIV tests are also said to register as false positives.

  2. Another truth-telling story is that of the huge prevalence of bareback films in the gay segment, produced in the very same area.

    Years ago in the ’80s and ’90s, only the vintage pre-AIDS films depicting unprotected gay sex were available. Nowadays, it seems, in the gay community nobody wants the condomania ones, and the bareback releases fly off the shelf. Assuming a good business/industry will go where the money goes, Cha-Ching, why is it we never see seroconverting hysteria reports in the gay porn segment? Therefore it has to have the same non-transmission stats as the heterosexual sectior, it has to be.

    Just like N. Padian et al., the proof is in the pudding. If it’s not sexually transmitted in straight men and woman, why should it be transmitted within in any group at all?

    • Henry Bauer said

      Brian Carter:

      Yes, surely. I didn’t come across specific statistics separating out hetero- from gay adult films, or info about whether some production companies specialize in one or the other. I did see mentions that some of the male stars perform in both hetero and gay.

      • Martin said

        Hi Dr. Bauer, If it had not already been mentioned, the porn industry is very “incestuous” being that male gay porn actors also do hetero porn as well, also women switch as well. Good-looking men and women who can perform well in porn films and look good in print media are a commodity. Note that many men seen in gay-porn magazines also turned up in magazines like Playgirl — fancy that. No wonder gay men also obtained copies of Playgirl as well.

  3. Dave said

    Let’s think this through logically:

    1. Most AIDS patients in the USA are gay males.

    2. Lesbians don’t typically get AIDS.

    3. Padian estimates that 1/10,000 shot of man getting HIV from a woman.

    Therefore, if HIV is spread sexually, then most likely it will be found in the semen of men. This would explain 1-3 above.

    So, what does the literature say on the subject?

    See Van Voorhis (1990)

    http://www.rethinkingaids.com/portals/0/TheCD/T-Y/voo.pdf

    Out of 25 HIV+ males, only 1 (that’s right, only 1) showed evidence of detectable HIV thru the magic of PCR.

    Let me repeat: 1/25

    If 97.5% of HIV positive folks don’t even have detectable HIV in their semen, how on earth is it transmitted sexually?

    • And in this study; they found unprotected receptive oral sex with a man to be statistically estimated as zero, which further substantiates the absence of HIV in semen. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010815082420.htm

      I wonder why these items from mainstream research never get any air time?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Brian Carter:
        Who wants to give air time to things that don’t seem to fit the accepted theory?

      • Skepticthough said

        Reading the story noted above:

        “The participants were screened for HIV infection and also for recent HIV infection using both the standard test for HIV and a test for HIV that is “detuned” to detect only those HIV infections that have occurred within the six months prior to taking the test.”

        What do they mean by “detuned”? Have you heard of this before Henry?

      • Henry Bauer said

        Skepticthough:

        Some years ago CDC had this bright idea that comparing positives on the most sensitive antibody test with positives on a less sensitive, “detuned”, test would allow calculation of how recent the infection was; it’s described at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/incidence.htm

        I found their “results” intriguing because for 2006 they concluded that the median age of first infection was at age >30, once again illustrating that “HIV” isn’t a sexually transmitted disease, because those typically affect adolescents and young-twenties more than mature adults. Also illustrating or confirming that EVERYTHING about HIV/AIDS is a maximum around 35-45: rates of testing positive, new diagnoses of “AIDS”, rates of death from “HIV disease”.

  4. skepicalthough said

    What this story reveals is the true nature of the HIV=AIDS theory. No stories trumpeting the introduction of new non-toxic anti-HIV meds. No stories ranting about the success of HIV vaccines. No stories bellowing proof that HIV does in fact kill T-cells. The purpose and intent of the HIV=AIDS theory is to humiliate, demean, subjugate, and marginalize “undesirables” in society, namely blacks, gays, bisexuals, and drug users, or to advance some puritan antisex ideology. This story also demonstrates nicely the hypocrisy of America. Here we have the porn industry being publicly scorned for passing the HIV contagion, while the same industry hauls in 15 billion dollars a year. That’s more than GM has earned in quite some time. Reminds me of a certain Senator and his toe-tapping bathroom antics.

    • Henry Bauer said

      skepticalthough:
      My long-standing beef with sociology is its tendency to describe circumstances in terms of straightforward intent. I would paraphrase something like this:
      “The EFFECT of the HIV=AIDS theory is to humiliate, demean, subjugate, and marginalize ‘undesirables’ in society, namely blacks, gays, bisexuals, and drug users, or to advance some puritan antisex ideology.”
      because I don’t think it started out that way. It started as a series of blunders by incompetent opportunists like Gallo.

      I think the continuation of the tragedy owes a lot to just about all those involved in the HIV/AIDS industry thinking only about what is good for themselves. There’s been no disinterested re-assessment of the evidence. Lots of grant money and other goodies for doing the usual, no thought to what those drugs do to the people who have them thrust on them. None of the researchers are big enough or secure enough in themselves to be able to say they’ve made a mistake. The drug companies are just doing what they do on everything, looking for every which way to sell stuff irrespective of whether it’s needed or does any good or does harm.

  5. collin said

    Some would argue that the ongoing “HIV”testing in the porn industry is what contributes to the low transmission of “HIV.” With all the std testing that’s done among porn actors I wonder what the transmission rate of real std’s are among them compared to the ordinary population? In other words do porn actors have low transmission rates of other std’s due to frequent std testing?

    • Henry Bauer said

      collin:
      “Among 825 performers screened in 2000–2001, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had chlamydia, and 2% overall had gonorrhea”, in that PLoS article I cited.

      So there’s a lot more of the genuine STDs than of “HIV+” tests. This also is yet another disproof of one of the standard HIV/AIDS shibboleths (or lies), namely, that having an STD makes one more likely to acquire “HIV+” status.

      • collin said

        Thanks for the information. I looked at CDC chlamydia stats and not one of them comes close to the rate of chlamydia among these porn actors. I even compared the age groups with the highest rates of chlamydia to those porn stats and they don’t come close. But, the “HIV” transmission rate among these porn actors is 5/10,000 as compared with 1/1000 in the general population? Bizarre.

      • Henry Bauer said

        collin:
        Pure speculation on my part: chlamydia is more prevalent among women than among men; maybe there are more women than men among porn actors, in which case the average chlamydia rate would be higher than for groups with equal representation from both sexes.

      • collin said

        Good point. However, that 7.7% rate of female porn actors infected with chlamydia for the year 2001 is far more than the CDC stats for women with the highest rates of chlamydia from 2003 to 2007.

        http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/tables/10.htm

      • Henry Bauer said

        collin:
        Those CDC numbers are national averages. The highest rates are for 15-25-year-olds, at a bit over 2.5%. That age range seems right for porn stars, and a rate 3 times the national average would seem reasonable for an undoubtedly sexually transmitted disease among women who surely have a lot more sex than the national average.

  6. Dave said

    AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease.

    AIDS is not a gay disease.

    AIDS is a poorly cobbled-together collection of old diseases, based weakly on a set of phantom novel mechanisms (retroviruses and low T4 cell measurements).

    That a small subset of gay males in 1981 were getting Kaposi Sarcoma thru poppers and pneumonia thru a lot of late-night partying has led a lotta people astray.

  7. onecleverkid said

    Hello,
    Can I play the devil’s advocate for a minute, because I want to see the discussion that might follow. Even using HIV=AIDS logic, the reason why the adult industry has a 5/10,000 instead of the 1/1,000 transmission rate of the overall population, could probably be due to the fact that porn actors don’t ejaculate inside their partners. Everything they do is for the camera, so they are trained not to waste “it” by doing “it” where the viewer can’t watch. Couldn’t this explain the discrepancy?

    • Henry Bauer said

      onecleverkid:

      As Brian Carter and Dave pointed out, with cited sources, there’s very little if any “HIV” to be found in semen. Furthermore, if the transfer of semen were the path for sexual transmission of “HIV”, then there could be no female-to-male transmission, yet that is alleged to occur (admittedly usually at a lesser alleged frequency).

      • onecleverkid said

        I am quoting from the above cited paper:”Human immunodeficiency virus type 1…is primarily spread through sexual intercourse. This virus has been detected by viral culture in semen of seropositive men, but very little information exists regarding its prevalence in semen and mechanisms underlying its sexual transmission.”

        So, basically, they are saying that HIV IS spread through semen, though they don’t know how and they can’t find much of it in there. (Side note: How did Gallo et al. have proof that HIV was sexually transmitted in 1984, if this study was done in the 90s?) Since the mainstream views of HIV were established in the 80s without proof, it seems all subsequent data is warped and interpreted through this filter with pre-conceived notions, when instead they should give up on the idea of it being transmitted through semen.

        But to stick to playing the devil’s advocate, since they believe it is spread primarily through semen, the fact that porn actors do not ejaculate inside their partners would explain a lower “transmission rate” while other STDs (which can be transmitted on contact with infected skin, for example) transmit at normal rates.

      • Henry Bauer said

        onecleverkid:

        Yes, on HIV/AIDS theorists’ own terms, that’s a possible explanation. Trouble is, they can explain anything, even why more breast-feeding “transmits” LESS “HIV”! 😉

        More seriously: It’s quite difficult to prove the negative, that “HIV” isn’t this or that, or that it’s not transmitted, given that the orthodoxy does not offer for contradiction any specific publication as definitive proof. So there can be lengthy to-and-fro about all sorts of details. For me, the conclusive disproof was that the demographics of “HIV” tests describe something that is essentially invariant over time and between groups and by age and by race.

  8. MacDonald said

    Gentlemen,

    I am terribly sorry to interrupt the party like this, but Chris Noble’s Ghost will not let me rest until I have informed you all that HIV infection is not acquired through unsafe sex. HIV infection is acquired through unsafe sex with an infected partner.

    Therefore, if the porn industry religiously tests its performers, and does not allow anyone who is infected to participate, it is not strange at all, at all that the remaining performers do not infect each other post 2004, no matter how much and how unsafe the sex is.

    The only source of infection for these people would have to be their partners outside work, which would bring the expected rates of infection down in the vicinity of national averages.

    Furthermore, since performers in the sex industry have a heightened awareness of the dangers and methods of HIV transmission, and arguably have more at stake as well, it is quite probable that they are more careful than the average person when enjoying themselves outside work, which again would lessen the risk of bringing any unwanted little fellows with them on the job.

    True, they do seem to have relatively high rates of gonnorhea and chlamydia,
    but perhaps the testing requirements are not so rigid for these conditions on and off the job, so to speak.

    What these rates seem to suggest is that anal or vaginal trauma of the kind received when shooting porn does not in itself bring about a positive HIV test; neither do recreational or prescription drug use, the various forms of stress, the relatively high incidence of microbial infections, or anything else these people might be prone to in a higher degree than the average population, suffice to trigger a test.

    Perhaps the modern porn industry simply selects for clean, wholesome, emotionally stable, fun-loving all-American kids.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s