Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  TEST CASE

The HIV Diagnosis That Shut Down CA’s Porn Industry Was A False Positive

Remember that unidentified HIV+ porn star that caused several California porn studios to shut down? Turns out it was a false positive and, when the performer was retested, it turned out he or she didn’t really have HIV (link NSFW).

While we’re glad it turned out to be an error does this mean studios will resume their orgy of nonstop barebacking?

By:           Daniel Villarreal
On:           Sep 4, 2011
Tagged: , , , ,

  • 27 Comments
    • Riker
      Riker

      Still, better to err on the side of caution. We hate these studios why? Seems to me like they did the right thing to protect their employees.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jakey
      Jakey

      Link not safe for brains, either. “Misguided” campaign for condoms in porn? Christ.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @Jakey: Did you read the article that the phrase linked to? It describes AFA’s Brian Fischer joining the mandatory-condom push, and them wanting to take it further by making unprotected anal sex between two gay men illegal nationwide.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alistair
      Alistair

      If people of legal age want to get paid for having sex (without a condom or with a condom) thats up to them.
      I personally do NOT engage in unsafe sex. However, we live in a free society.
      And as for those people who think that watching barebacking in videos causes young gay men to go out and get AIDS. Then you need to start your campaign to remove all smoking from movies, and all violence.

      Get real gays!

      Sep 4, 2011 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Imagine how many false positives have occurred in the past. As a result of false positives, people have embarked on a regime of AZT that has ultimately killed them. It’s the AZT that has killed the, not the HIV. These drugs are very powerful and have a wide range of side-effects.

      You all need to remember that HIV does not cause AIDS. AIDS exists but it is the net result of a lot of factors. In isolation, HIV does not cause AIDS.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 5 · jason wrote, “In isolation, HIV does not cause AIDS.”

      The sort of “isolation” where this is true is called a test tube,
      petri dish, or any other device used to study a virus outside a
      human body.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 7:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @jason: You know that the Duesberg hypothesis has been thoroughly and completely debunked, right? The idea that poppers, alcohol, sex etc is the root cause of AIDS has been absolutely disproven, as has the theory that HIV is just a harmless carrier virus.

      In addition, AZT hasn’t been used as a single-drug therapy in decades.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 7 · Riker wrote, “@jason: You know that the Duesberg hypothesis has been thoroughly and completely debunked, right? The idea that poppers, alcohol, sex etc is the root cause of AIDS has been absolutely disproven, as has the theory that HIV is just a harmless carrier virus.”

      The consensus is that Duesberg’s hypothesis is wrong, but it is also true that he received an extremely hostile reaction to it when it was first proposed. The level of vitriol and impact on his research funding may have contributed substantially to him subsequently arguing for his hypothesis well beyond the point where the empirical evidence strongly indicated otherwise.

      It’s unfortunate as his original objection was an interesting one (he didn’t just say “poppers” but claimed that the number of infections seemed to change with time in ways that do not fit how viral epidemics typically behave) – anomalous behavior is often very interesting and trying to understand it can lead to new insights. It may be that heavy use of poppers, alcohol, etc. causes side effects that allow HIV to cause AIDS sooner than otherwise, but it is also conceivable that understanding the mechanisms by which that occurs would lead to better treatments by suggesting unanticipated ways of interfering with the virus.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @B: Yes, his hypothesis was an interesting one and should have been met with a spirit of scientific curiosity. That said, it was decades ago. Nowadays, a failed theory who’s proponents try to convince people not to use antiretroviral therapy has caused countless deaths, especially in Africa. To allow it to go unchallenged in 2011 is irresponsible. What if some impressionable young kid reads this and then seroconverts? Allowing them to read this crap without a refutation directly following it could cost lives.

      Sep 4, 2011 at 10:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 9 · Riker wrote, “What if some impressionable young kid reads this and then seroconverts?”

      Hopefully the kid would read the first sentence in No 8 that says, “the consensus is that Duesberg’s hypothesis is wrong,” followed by a guess as to why he mitght have held out longer than he reasonably should have – I was also suggesting (in different words) that the hostile reaction he received may have contributed to the material that the impressionable young kid may now stumble across.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 12:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • steve
      steve

      False positive?

      Geez with all the money behind the porn industry you’d think they could arrange a more accurate form of testing. Imagine the poor person who has had to come to terms over the past few weeks with something they don’t even have?! They should perhaps take this as a sign to move on from the industry

      Sep 5, 2011 at 2:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @steve: There are two HIV tests that are commonly used, an immunoassay test and a Western Blot test. The immunoassay test basically takes a sample of HIV antigens and tries to see if the blood serum of the patient contains HIV antibodies, which will bind with the antigens. The thing is, sometimes other types of antibodies will bind with the HIV antigen to try and fight it, so the difference between positive and negative results is determined by how much binding has taken place, with a fairly low cutoff for positive tests. Most rapid HIV tests use this method.

      The Western Blot test is more accurate, takes longer, and is much more expensive. It is a genetic test which uses a process called gel electrophoresis to specifically look for HIV-1 genetic markers in infected cells.

      Western Blot testing can confirm several diseases, including Mad Cow disease and Hepatitis B, and the combination of a positive immunoassay and Western Blot is considered conclusive proof of HIV-1 infection.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 3:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • QJ201
      QJ201

      @jason. Koch’s Postulates, that set the criteria to establish that a microbe causes a diseases have been thoroughly met in the case of HIV.

      As for the false positive. Shocking that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation did not confirm the diagnosis before going public…nobody thought to do a PCR test (viral load) test?

      AIM, the organization that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation hounded into oblivion was never this sloppy when they reported a porn actor testing positive.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 7:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blair
      Blair

      Who cares. Condom-less sex in porn is stupid. It’s purely about the greed of a studio being placed over the safety of desperate performers.

      All this crap about choice is ridiculous. This is a business. The government regulates safety in the workplace all the time. If you work in construction, you have to wear helmet. If you work in kitchens, you have to wash your hands. If you work in a coal mine, your work environment is governed by safety measures.

      Trying to make the sex you see in a porn into something other than a business arrangement is pathetically naive or cynical. It’s all about making money. HIV, HPV, hepatitis, etc.

      Why is it so hard to understand that porn performers, for the most part, are just desperate people who need cash? We constantly read about some poor guy or gal who quits porn only to discover that his/her former line of work destroys a new career.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 10:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      AIDS is not a disease, it’s a syndrome. Big difference. There is no such thing as a virus causing a syndrome. A virus can cause a disease, yes, but not a syndrome.

      AIDS is the classic case of where a word (ie AIDS) was invented to accommodate a false cause-and-effect proposition (ie that a viruse causes a syndrome). Think RSI and you get another piece of the fake puzzle.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 10:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeE
      MikeE

      @jason: In this case, the virus causes the immune deficiency. The “syndrome” is what follows the reduction of the immune system below normal healthy levels.
      There’s no “false cause and effect”.
      If a virus reduces your immune defenses to zero, then the virus has, in effect, “caused” the “effect” that brings on the conditions that make you ill.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • QJ201
      QJ201

      @jason: @MikeE: HIV denialists, they refuse to believe that HIV damages the immune system. Christine Maggiore was the most famous denialist; she refused to get her newborn daughter tested for HIV and the daughter died as a toddler. Christine refused and autopsy and claimed her daughter died of an allergic reaction to drugs. Christine herself was dead a few years later. But she made a nice living making speeches about how HIV is a harmless virus.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MikeE
      MikeE

      @jason: Jason said: “You all need to remember that HIV does not cause AIDS. AIDS exists but it is the net result of a lot of factors. In isolation, HIV does not cause AIDS.”

      What exactly do you mean by “a lot of factors”? Are you one of those who insist that drug use is in a direct causal relationship with AIDS?

      I’m really curious to hear your answer. Because I’ve known quite a few people who have become HIV+, then died of AIDS complications, and these were people who NEVER took drugs in their entire lives, never abused alcohol, and lead by all standards exemplary lives.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 1:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jakey
      Jakey

      @Riker: I did read that part. What I take issue with is pretending that these are the only people interested in making condoms mandatory. Just because crazies share a rational goal with you is no reason to abandon the goal.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @Jakey: No it isn’t, but its a slippery slope (as much as I hate using this argument). If momentum gets behind this measure, I could easily see the AFA trying to hijack that momentum to push further into criminalizing all condomless gay sex, and then gay sex in general. Remember, Brian “anal” Fischer is the same guy who wants gays arrested and put into “re-education” (read: concentration) camps. His associates are the ones that pushed for Uganda’s Kill the Gays bill. this is someone who seriously wants to hurt us.

      If we start the ball rolling, who knows where that momentum will take it?

      Sep 5, 2011 at 2:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @Little Kiwi: Thank you for that personal insult. Sorry, but I won’t stoop to the same level, since I believe that a healthy debate should be polite and civil.

      I’m not a member of GOProud, nor do I support a lot of the stupid shit they do. I work alone, and on a local level, to create change in the republican party. I haven’t had much success with elected officials, but whenever my county Republican Committee or local Republican clubs throw events, i’m there to socialize as an openly gay man and talk to the voters themselves about our rights. Many of them have been grossly misinformed, and I always carry a manila folder with results of studies showing, among other things, that gay parents are just as successful as straight parents and essays on the history of marriage, showing how it has changed considerably and was not always a religious institution. I also talk about famous gays throughout history, like Alexander the Great, Frederick II of Prussia, and Alan Turing, without whom we would probably be speaking German right now.

      If you’ll notice, more and more Republicans are supporting gay rights. I can’t pretend I myself have been a significant contributor to that, but there are hundreds of people like me all across the country that are doing the same thing. We can’t win the fight without the support of at least *some* Republicans.

      I’m not fighting in the same way as you, but we both have the same goal.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 3:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Little Kiwi
      Little Kiwi

      here’s what you don’t get, Riker – you get mad at my “personal insult” and yet continue to vote for a party full people who indeed make “Personal Insults” to YOU their official political platform.

      “If you’ll notice, more and more Republicans are supporting gay rights”

      Citations, please. Know what I’ve noticed? The GOP is still the go-to Party for every bigot in America.

      when you vote GOP we don’t have the same goal. You vote for people who actively work against you as a gay man, then like a true ignorant coward get mad at me for..what? “namecalling”? “personal insults?”

      you support the GOP who do not support YOU. you LOVE personal insults. you vote for the people who demonize you.

      lame.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      HIV does not reduce your immune defenses to zero. If that were the case, every single person who has HIV would be dead within a year. People with HIV have been living for many, many years. Look at Magic Johnson – he’s had HIV for 20 years.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 23 · jason wrote, “HIV does not reduce your immune defenses to zero. If that were the case, every single person who has HIV would be dead within a year. People with HIV have been living for many, many years. Look at Magic Johnson – he’s had HIV for 20 years.”

      Magic Johnson is getting the best anti-viral drugs and medical care money can buy – he can afford it.

      Sep 5, 2011 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      B,

      Oh, please, give me a break. Anti-viral drugs actually are harmful to your health. There is no such thing as an anti-viral in any case. Viruses cannot be countered. Just as there is no anti-viral for the flu virus, there is not anti-viral for HIV.

      The only reason anti-virals took off was because the pharmaceutical companies – many of whom funded the HIV-causes-AIDS research conclusions – duped people into thinking that anti-viral drugs actually work. These companies have laughed all the way to the bank.

      Sep 6, 2011 at 10:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riker
      Riker

      @jason: Are you seriously disputing the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy? You think its just a coincidence that the lifespans and quality of life of AIDS patients increased dramatically after the introduction of HAART in 1996? And again when newer protease inhibitors were introduced?

      Yes, antiretrovirals are harmful to your health. But not as harmful as AIDS is so its a much better option. What the denialist fringe doesn’t understand is that a medicine can help you in the right circumstances but harm you in other ones. For example, chemotherapy kills healthy cells. It also kills cancer cells, and is better than actually having cancer, so it is used.

      HIV doesn’t reduce immune defenses? One only has to look at the CD4 T-cell count of an HIV patient over time to disprove that.

      Your information is based on outdated pre-1996 data, when AZT was the only possible treatment and it wasn’t all that effective. AZT is only rarely used as single-drug therapy nowadays, and modern cocktails work well if used properly. The science has moved on, but denialist screams are the same as they were in 1989. And they’re still just as wrong and dangerous.

      Sep 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Take drugs, stay up late partying every night, eat poor foods – do these things and I guarantee you that your T-cell count will fall markedly even if you don’t have HIV in your body.

      There are tons of people with compromised immune systems who don’t have HIV in their bloodstreams.

      Sep 7, 2011 at 8:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.