[QUOTE=gaybucks_chip;16023]In other words, there appear to be some people who for lack of any other explanation have very strong immune systems that resist seroconversion even when repeatedly exposed to high viral loads.
Pretty amazing that we’re going on some 25+ years of research on this topic and there’s still so much we don’t know.[/QUOTE]
There are the people of Northern European descent who are resistant and in some cases immune. The Smallpox epidemic that Northern Europe went through resulted in a mutation of the CCR5 receptor. If both receptors are mutated (1% possibility for Northern Europeans) then your completely immune except to one particularly virulent strain of HIV that kills you quickly. If one receptor is mutated (10% chance for Northern Europeans) then you’re half as likely to get HIV.
In contrast just this week they found that 90% of black Africans and 60% of African Americans have a genetic mutation that makes them 40% more likely to become infected. Which explains much of what’s going on with AIDS in Africa.
But yes, it’s amazing how little we know about HIV 25+ years into things…
[QUOTE=gaybucks_chip;16010]
I’ve never seen the studies you’re speaking of relating to the risk of sex with low-viral load HIV+ people, but I’m interested in reading up. Do you have links?[/QUOTE]
Chip, let me RE-Post this important link for you - the CDC remains one of the most complete data bases of knowledge for all aforementioned…
I can’t speak for other studios, but our education process involves sitting all of our models down at the beginning of a shoot period (we shoot usually in groups of scenes) and having a frank conversation, talking about some of the 8 or 10 or so models who we know and have worked with who have become positive over the past several years. So the only real cost there is the time spent trying to keep current on our information.
As for testing, it depends on how many STIs you are testing for, what lab or testing tools you’re using, whether you have someone come in and do the draws, and so forth. We have a pretty good deal, so it costs us under $100/model for HIV, hep-C, syphillis. When we add gonorrhea that will boost it up a little. I believe AIM is a bit higher, in part because you’re helping to support their infrastructure and service to the industry.
the standard AIM panel runs about $120 and additional viral load testing is extremely expensive - in the neighborhood of hundreds of dollars
we spend weeks in conversations and interviews with models prior to any type of agreement which if calculated, would run thousands of dollars in our time and time for medical professional consultations
I must emphasize that we are not trained medical practitioners (nor is anyone respondent on this board as far as I know) - and while the information we are all supplying in the form of links to articles and reports is all very interesting, it does not come with the vast medical backgrounds of doctors who have been reading, writing, researching and practicing in the field of HIV/AIDS for the past 25 years - this is why Cam and I have worked closely with a team of EXPERT researchers and practitioners and continue to do so in order to broaden our own knowledge base and to keep our performers at the lowest possible risk of HIV and STD infection.
I am thrilled that people are taking interest in the subject and are interested in learning more.
Out of curiosity, what is the turn around time for results these days for tests?
I recall a panel discussion at the Phoenix Forum in which someone pointed out the only way accurate results could be ensured is if models were locked in a hotel room from the time the test was taken to the time of the shoot. This would allow producers to get the results back and ensure the model didn’t become infected after the blood was drawn for the test.
Is this still the case or is it easier to get results?
I think you are confusing the time to get results with something else.
Some tests get immediate results, but may not be accurate. For example, an HIV test takes no time at all. But, it is really only an accurate reflection of your HIV status approximately three months ago, as it takes about three months for the HIV to show in the test. So, to say with a high percentage of accuracy that a model is HIV- at a shoot, you would have to test, lock the person up from having sex, and test three months later.
Some tests will show right away if there is an STD.
Other tests have to be sent back to a lab and may take a week.
So in some cases to be certain for a disease (HIV) you would really have to do two tests and be damn sure the model didn’t get exposed to the virus to be sure.
I can’t remember the accuracy on that three month period, but it is pretty high. The hard part is to be 100% safe, you would literally have to lock the model up and make sure he didn’t get exposed to HIV during that window.
There are near-instant tests (15-20 minute) for HIV, hep-C, syphillis, chlymidia, gonorrhea, and a couple of others that use a couple drops of blood and have an accuracy rate better than 99% for detection of antibodies to the virus or bacteria.
The issue with HIV is the latency period. The instant tests are all looking for the presence of antibodies, which can take 3 months to develop (and in a small percentage of cases, considerably longer.) The more sensitive PCR test (which I think AIM uses) identifies a protein inside the HIV virus, but still won’t catch someone very newly infected. Of course, if the person has HIV, but hasn’t yet developed antibodies to it, he will test negative with the instant tests, but could still have a high viral load and be able to transmit the virus to others.
This is because when HIV transmission occurs, the virus rapidly replicates and viral loads skyrocket until antibodies are formed which (temporarily) drop the viral load down, in many cases to almost undetectable levels, where they may stay for a long time, or climb again, depending on a number of factors.
So when someone says that the only way to truly ensure barebacking safety is to test a model and then lock him in a room for 3 months and test him again, they’re speaking of the latency issue.
This may be a silly question but…
RawTop, where are you going with this thread as it has branched off in many directions ?
as i do with any thread i read i like to know who started it and so i went to your home page and notice lots of bb and such as a matter of fact one of the images shows a guy being anally played with while have a blister on his ass. So i am confused on what your stance is and how are you relating it all to your own site. maybe im just off track by the time a thread gets to 5 pages i end up forgetting what the main theme was supposed to be…