something to think about...

CHATSWORTH, Calif. - While appreciating the financial burden that a moratorium on production places upon the entire industry, we see no other recourse considering the dire consequences of not doing so.

While the first-generation has been identified and quarantined, and AIM is rapidly creating a quarantine list for the second-generation, there is no doubt that there is already a third- and even fourth-generation in the outbreak.

The third- and fourth-generation is not being quarantined; AIM simply can’t track down that many people fast enough.

Thus we recommend that all adult companies cease production, or at the minimum shoot condom-only productions, until all women who have worked with Darren James since his last negative test, known as the “first-generation” have cleared. That will be on June 8, 2004.

In addition, we recommend that any woman who has performed with Darren James since Feb. 25 contact AIM. Most women in this category will have already passed their 30-day window, but as AIM’s Dr. Sharon Mitchell stated this morning there is a 60-day window before a person who has had sex with an HIV-positive partner can be 99 percent certain that infection has not occurred.  

James is believed to have caught the virus while in Brazil around March 10, and later today AIM should be able to give a “guesstimate” of when that happened based on further tests on the amount of antibodies in James’ blood.

This is about the lives of our friends, our family, and our peers. While it is highly unlikely, it is possible that every performer in the adult industry could have HIV by this point. If you are talent and choose to work, your putting your life and also anyone with whom you have any form of sexual contact your partner’s at risk.  

SOS to PSE seekers! See above link!

Some time ago I posted a risk analysis for HIV. (See link)

The analysis is mostly theoretical. There isn't much experimental data on the infectivity of HIV. (You can't experiment on human beings.)

However, based on the risk analysis I would estimate that about 2% or less of the second generation will turn out to be infected and probably almost nobody in the third generation.

We will see if the data falsifies the hypothesis.

According to the news item cited 12 women have so far been identified as being in the first generation.

We don't know exactly what each of them did with Darren James nor if they did it after he became infected. Lets take a worse case analysis and assume that all were exposed. Furthermore lets assume that each exposure consisted of a single act of unprotected receptive anal intercourse. If the HIV Risk analysis I did earlier is correct this would mean that each has a 0.01 probability of being infected.

In order to test that we have estimated risk correctly we want to know at the 95% confidence level what is the maximum number of infections we should expect.

Since the number in the population is small we can use the binomial theorem to estimate the number of infections.

Probability of 0 infections = 0.886
Probability of 1 infection = 0.107
Probability of 2 infections = 0.006
Probability of more than 2 infections = 0.001

Thus at the 95% confidence level we would expect not more than 1 of the 12 women to be infected.

If more than 1 of the 12 is infected we can consider that my HIV Risk analysis has been falsified at the 95% confidence level.

Seriously, this is interesting, and, at least for me, having a better understanding of the risk makes it even more real.  We need real numbers like this, not exaggerated ones intended to scare us.  Still, one in twelve ain't so good, if you're the one.

Anyway, like you, I get tested at AIM now.  I used to get tested at my doctor's office, but AIM has great rates and gives quick results.  Plus, I like the banner of theirs I put on my site.  I just wish it were a little smaller.  It's really big!  You've heard that before.  

Some of the 12 may have had sex with Darren James before he became infected and not been exposed at all.

Some may not have had unprotected anal intercourse with him (although that is common in porn). If a woman only had unprotected receptive vaginal sex with him that reduces the expected risk for her by a factor of 5. If he was wearing a condom that reduces the risk for her by another factor of at least 7 (most authorities estimate a factor of 20).

Note that even in the worst case analysis the probability that none of the 12 women is infected is almost 90%.

Frankly, I would be surprised if James infected anyone.

However, Marc Wallice (in 1998, I think) is thought to have infected 4 porn actresses (Brooke Ashley, Caroline, Tricia Deveraux, and Kimberly Jade) so I could be wrong. I'm not sure how often performers were tested for HIV in those days so I don't know how long Marc Wallice was infected before it was detected. I have heard rumours that he worked after he knew he was infected but I don't know if that is true.

In any case, I sincerely hope that none of the women are infected. I apologize if I have sounded cold blooded about this. I know that HIV is a very very scary thing.


-- Modified on 4/14/2004 11:19:51 PM

1st of all, I'm sure that you inadvertently reversed the numbers for receptive anal with and without condoms.  2nd, I expect that the historical data for receptive anal without condoms is actually higher than 1 in 100.  I would also add that there are some things related to Porn stars that make them WAY outside the normal averages.  Things like typical size of the male member, and frequency of sexual activity for the females, both of which greatly increase the likelihood of slight tears and abrasions in the tissue, which tends to be the fundamental mechanism of transmission.  Remember that statistical averages are just that, AVERAGES.  There is a great deal about Porn that renders the AVERAGES inappropriate as estimators as it relates to THAT SPECIFIC POPULATION SAMPLE.  Which probably goes a long way to explaining how Marc Wallace managed to infect an estimated 4 actresses during the time he was working after getting HIV.

That being said, I would agree that the odds strongly would indicate that the likelihood of any one in the 1st generation to be no more than 1 or 2 transmissions, and probably no transmissions into the 2nd generation.  But still, AIDS is still virtually a death sentence, so caution is of course, warranted.

-- Modified on 4/15/2004 2:47:36 PM

The experts feel that the infectivity of HIV varies widely over the course of the disease (being highest in the very early stages and the very late stages) so any estimate of infectivity is at best an average.

Also since blood and semen are the primary carriers of HIV and internal ejaculations are very rare in porn it could be argued that risks are reduced on porn sets (ignoring what performers are doing off camera, of course).

The convential probability estimates of infection for a single act with an HIV infected partner are:
   unprotected receptive anal intercourse: 0.01
   unprotected receptive vaginal intercourse: 0.002
   protected receptive anal intercourse: 0.0005
   protected receptive vaginal intercouse: 0.0001

If these numbers seem low think back to the early 1980's when HIV was spreading in San Francisco. The number of cases was doubling every year. That was horrifying, but it means that each infected person was ON AVERAGE infecting one new person each year. This is in spite of the fact that the gay population (which didn't have a clue as to what they were up against at the time) was having a lot of unprotected anal sex with many many partners over the course of a year. The rate of spreading seems at least roughly consistent with the estimate that each 100 acts of receptive anal sex with an HIV infected partner causes an infection.

Heaven help us if HIV ever mutates to spread like the flu. (Or the bird flu in Asia ever jumps the species barrier the way HIV did.)

I agree fully that caution is warrented with HIV since the disease is so deadly. I do draw a distinction between caution and panic.



-- Modified on 4/15/2004 8:06:07 PM

on That other BoarD, the link was removed.  Wonder what they have to hide?

Mathesar, you are greatly appreciated on these boards. You're not being cold. I think looking at the cold hard numbers brings a little sanity into a very scary situation, at least until we know more

IMHO, Mathesar has mis-used statistical averages for the population at large as predictors for HIV transmission in this SPECIFIC POPULATION.  I feel that his estimates are possibly understating the transmission likelihood by perhaps an order of magnitude.  I'd hypothesize that Porn Stars are, as a group, EXTREME outliers on the bell curve of a normal population distribution for certain factors that would affect the transmission of HIV - Size of the male, and frequency of the activity, which whould lead to much greater frequency of abbrasions in the female, which creates a pathway for HIV transmission that is usually mostly blocked in completely healthy people.

But still, even if you accept MY premise, the likely outcome would still only be 1-2 cases in Generation one, and zero cases in generation two, as opposed to Mathesar's prediction of 0-1 case in Generation one.

-- Modified on 4/16/2004 2:45:05 PM

We will all learn something about the probabilities at least as they relate to this sample population, as this event unfolds.  How applicable that this will be to the general populace, I truly don't know.

And wouldn't such treatment negate testing?

Just a query.

Elise [email protected]

From what I've heard, the prophylactic cocktail is a short term treatment for a matter of a couple of weeks, and that it will require a month after that before testing is conclusive.  But it is also ONLY effective if it is taken within a VERY short time after the suspected exposure, like within days, or ideally, hours, as opposed to weeks.  It is designed to kill the HIV virus before it establishes a foothold in the exposed person's system.

And you can bet your butt that if it was me who was exposed, the timeliness of the testing would be a lesser concern to me than taking the cocktail, which could actually prevent the transmission of HIV.  But if the exposure was several weeks prior, the cocktail is fairly useless.