Apr
20
CDC Report on Poz Diagnosis Slams Adult Biz
April 20, 2011 | 5 Comments
A report undertaken by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that sought to investigate the recent HIV-positive diagnosis of a male performer was hampered by “limited cooperation” by the adult studios involved, said the report’s author, Dr. Francisco Meza. “Two male porn actors were HIV-positive when they had sex with Derrick Burts, an adult film performer whose HIV diagnosis in October” led to the suspension of production for a short time, the report reads. Mr. Burts claims he had sex with “six men and 10 women” in the two months prior to his positive diagnosis, but “officials have been able to contact only five of them, and none wanted to cooperate with the investigation,” notes the Los Angeles Times. “Of his 16 sexual partners, 15 were on the set and involved 12 filming locations and 10 production companies,” the report finds. Condoms were used during his anal sex scenes with men, but were not utilized during “vaginal or oral scenes.” He began working in the industry in early August 2010, tested negative on September 3 and received a positive diagnosis on October 6. “Health officials concluded he was probably infected between mid-August and mid-September,” said the Times. Meza urges production companies to supply the names of Burts’ scene partners to health officials, adding that “federal law requires those firms to keep their real names to prove they are not minors. He also urged the use of condoms during filming of any sex act.” CLICK HERE for the full Los Angeles Times story.
See also:
* “Steele, Romoni Debate Condoms, Safer Sex in Porn”
* “AIM Denied License by Calif.; Poz Model Reiterates Criticism“
[Image by Luis Sinco © Los Angeles Times.]
Comments
5 Comments so far
Well, as usual in the mainstream media when it covers porn, they go for the sensational without bothering to actually research the issue or ask anyone inside the industry any questions. It’s obvious why producers didn’t want to participate: HIPAA laws prevent anyone with direct knowledge of another person’s medical conditions from discussing it with anyone else. And privacy laws in general protect the information gathered for 2257 requirements from being shared with anyone (outside of the FBI/DOJ).
That said, the information the CDC needed is out there; from pornwikileaks to general discussion boards, they could have found real names and addresses. Second, it would have been interesting had the LA Times reporter contacted AIM and asked if they had been contacted by the CDC. Surely, AIM would have helped them.
Or, is this just another case of Michael Weinstein acting out?
@Jamie — Given Weinstein is quoted in this most recent “Times” article, I’m guessing you’re right about that last statement.
I can’t imagine the “Times” writer doesn’t realize what’s up with privacy laws; she does mention towards the end of the piece that a presentation of this report was canceled due to concerns about patient privacy. But perhaps she just hasn’t put it all together.
I doubt the reporter called AIM; they appear to be the villain now. Wish the adult biz would get its goddamn act together and help AIM hire a good press agent to advocate for the services they have provided, whatever its faults.
The adult industry has to fucking stop acting like it’s still 1992.
Regards,
JCA
I’m more bothered that actors who know they are HIV+ continue to work in the industry. Appears that they think nothing of putting their scene partners at risk and hide when the authorities come investigating. Why not participate in the investigation? Why hide?
What is more disturbing is the long list of porn companies that knowingly put HIV+ models to work with models that they have no idea of their status. This could easily be corrected by testing all models.
And then the industry blames and laughs at Derrik Burts. Shameful!
Use condoms and it wouldn’t be an issue…..
The last two comments highlight the problem. First, Bob, the shoot on which Birts claims to have seroconverted was a condom set. Second, Brad, the models assume that the producer has perfect information and that they’re looking out for the models. This is particularly at issue in condom porn, as the producers take Bob’s advice and think the magic condom will protect everyone. As Chris Steele pointed out in the panel discussion in LA recently, there is other activity that is on every set and in every movie that could result in STD transmission including HIV. So the producers don’t think they have to take any precautions if they use condoms; the models think the producers would not put them at risk. These factors are not mutually exclusive.
But to ask why anyone — porn model or plumber — would “hide” is simply näive. Everyone has a right to privacy when it comes to medical records. We have specific laws to protect medical information.
Further, your assumption indicates that the models were identified, contacted and chose not to participate. The LA Times story suggests that the CDC was not able to gather the models’ real name and contact info from the producers. As I suggested, this is shoddy reporting on the Times’ part. The reporter doesn’t tell us whether or not this was the case. Clearly some of the models disclosed their status to the CDC, as the report includes some relevant data points regarding Birts’ sexual partners.
What we don’t know is every sexual partner Birts had, and if he’s telling the truth. His story has changed; he denies escorting despite having an active profile on RentBoy; and he, according to the article, had an undisclosed homosexual partner whose status the CDC was therefor unable to ascertain. At one point, he claimed he seroconverted when the top came on his back and the cum ran down and into his butt. While there’s no doctor out there who would rule this out as a possibility, you really have to ask yourself if this was the likely method of transmission.
Who’s blaming or laughing at Birts? Or are you confusing the disdain with which many have reacted to AHF and Michael Weinstein’s questionable activities with reactions towards Birts? Birts is simply Weinstein’s pawn in his scheme to force porn production out of California and eventually the US. Maybe this explains why Birts’ story changed after he contacted AHF and Weinstein thought he had his poster boy for advancing his moratorium.
If anyone is blaming Birts, its because he seems to be willingly allowing himself to be used by Weinstein, not that he contracted HIV.
Nevertheless, Brad, your point about testing is salient. JC, is this what you meant when you said it’s time for the industry to stop acting like it’s 1992? What do the studio heads have to say about testing? If what they say about caring for the models’ health is true, how could there by any models out there that don’t know their HIV status, and how could any of these studios knowingly partner a sero-discordant/unknown couple?