Open letter regarding HIV in the american porn industry

Dear All,

I have seen individuals and a group writing about a problem with HIV testing in the adult industry in USA, one they are aiming to ‘fix’.

The group aim to add tests to the RNA “PCR” HIV regular tests. They want to add the Antibody “Elisa, 4th gen…” test as standard for the monthly certs a performer needs to work. Meanwhile outside USA, countries are seeing if RNA testing and a centralised database are possible to establish across Europe. However there are significant challenges this poses making it unlikely, and those are not the content of this letter. This letter is to address the situation in USA and misinformation circulating.

The individuals and group calling to add the antibody test to the RNA test (as a monthly standard), are specifically doing this to identify where someone is living with HIV but has an Undetectable Viral Load. An Undetectable Viral load is the result of someone living with HIV, but when on effective treatment. I refer to them here as a U+ performer. The group explains this aim by saying they cannot in good conscience let U+ performers work in the industry. They consider them to be a risk of passing on HIV.

“The group’s own opinion is catered for: Their opinion meaning they don’t have to work with a U+ performer. In fact, no one who Doesn’t want to work with a U+ performer has to.”

In addition to this they do not want other people that hold HIV- certificates, to have the choice to join talent pools where they can work with U+ performers. They seem to have particular dislike with talent pools where a model consents to join, saying they do not want to know if their partner is HIV- or U+, as long as they are one of either, following substantial data that this is actually safe.

These mixed talent pools mean any U+ performer is given the dignity and respect of choice in disclosing personal medical information if they want to. Information sharing that can impact their privacy and security. People who do not have an Undetectable Viral Load still not being allowed to work.

The group’s own opinion is catered for: Their opinion meaning they don’t have to work with a U+ performer. In fact, no one who Doesn’t want to work with a U+ performer has to. They are not “tricked” into doing so without knowledge of what they are consenting to either. If anyone says they want to only work with HIV- cert holders, then that is respected.

The attitude of the group is to try and exclude U+ performers and those happy to work with them. Even though this is not them themselves. It highlights their distrust of the science surrounding modern HIV research and prevention. It also shows an over-confidence in a test’s ability to show recent HIV exposure.

“This is the “window period” that all HIV tests have. This means no one can 100% rely on a HIV- cert holder to be HIV- just by them just showing the cert.”

No test can show if HIV has been caught in the days most recently leading up to having that test. The group also make an attempt to stop other people learning that a safer scene partner, counter- intuitively, is a U+ performer rather than a HIV- cert holder. This is due to to variables with anyone holding a HIV- cert.

The group understands all HIV tests have times they cannot be accurate for, but they fail to retain that if you test today and get the results today; the results still do not tell you what your status is Today… The results tell you what it WAS 1-3 months ago: if an antibody test… or if an RNA test: it tells you what it WAS around a week or more ago.

This is the “window period” that all HIV tests have. This means no one can 100% rely on a HIV- cert holder to be HIV- just by them just showing the cert.

If they are not HIV-, and if they are not on effective HIV treatment then there are significant risks to others there. Findings show most people contract HIV from someone who thought they themselves were HIV-. So this trusting of grouping “HIV-“ as safe, is flawed in a real world setting rather than theoretical ones.

“In contrast no one has ever contracted HIV from a U+ person. No one in the history of the HIV epidemic. Back in the patient history from the 80s up to now in the many studies that happened.”

In contrast no one has ever contracted HIV from a U+ person. No one in the history of the HIV epidemic. Back in the patient history from the 80s up to now in the many studies that happened. Studies were HIV- people and U+ people had sex without a condom or “PrEP” use. Not a single person has ever caught HIV from a U+ person.

We also know someone goes from HIV- to highly transmittable HIV, potentially very fast when they catch it. Where as U+ people even coming off their meds (something they are unlikely to do as they will become sick) has a slow time building up back into a transmittable level.

Consider a ball hitting the ground rolling fast, verses a ball at stand still, building up momentum as it starts to roll downhill. This is the difference between new HIV transmission timing/risks and someone already on treatment for HIV. In addition people living with HIV have medical professionals dedicated to ensuring their viral levels are managed, and following up on the U+ person, if they are missing tests or appointments.

Undetectable levels are commonly identified as under 50VL (Viral Load) a number which could be a hundred of thousand VL. The term “Elite controller” refers to people that manage a low VL, relatively well even before medication, it is incredibly rare.

PrEP stands for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. It is a pill designed to prevent the taker from contracting HIV, even during sex without a condom. If taken correctly it works. PrEP is a more reliable method of preventing on-set HIV transmission than just relying on the validity of HIV- certificates.

The group pushing for this change to testing, has mixed feelings towards PrEP also. They doubt how much it works, but also they are more concerned about how much it would cost them to be on… without making an effort to engage with campaigns driving down the price of PrEP access in USA. Brilliant activist groups like breakthepatent.org. This is something a public platform could give a lot of help to if they wanted.

This highlights that the group do not actually care about reducing HIV transmissions if it requires learning something conclusive yet counterintuitive… or if it requires activism to reduce the cost. A cost that many models from other countries don’t face. They either access free PrEP or they buy the cheaper yet identical generics online. Online purchase is also available in USA. Buying like this is best done via the non profits that vet the suppliers are providing genuine drugs. Groups like Iwantprepnow.co.uk do this and are supported by the THT charity taking no money from transactions or manufacturers, so they remain visibly unbiased in their duty. Their PrEP is as cheap as £20 ($26 plus charges) a month.

The attitude of the group shows a deep prejudice towards people who live with HIV, seeing them as “others” rather than siblings and lovers equally motivated in the fight to end HIV. People playing a huge roll in ending it and have gotten us to this point of progress.

“RNA testing does not show an Undetectable viral level, as the test works by “detecting” and counting virus to see if it is present. However currently RNA tests are NOT used to pair people without consent that they may be working with someone who is U+.”

The group wanting remove people’s right to work with U+ performer do more harm than good and play off the common fears and misconceptions. Playing off ignorance surrounding HIV, how HIV is tested and prevented. Bigotry to people that live with HIV is the attitude that causes more HIV transmissions. When people fear exclusion if they were to contract the virus, they can disassociate to topic completely, resulting in less late diagnosis or prevention take up.

It is regretful that a group set up to protect people can be so harmfully misinformative. Even doubting what the current RNA testing is used for. RNA testing does not show an Undetectable viral level, as the test works by “detecting” and counting virus to see if it is present.

However currently RNA tests are NOT used to pair people without consent that they may be working with someone who is U+. Suggesting this is why RNA tests are used sensationalises a sensitive issue, compounding discrimination towards people living with HIV.

“A group resistant to staying updated will not look good for the adult industry in the future. The event could, in fact be weaponised by anti-porn campaigns, stating porn is not staying up to date with HIV medical professionals”.

The world moved towards common knowledge of U=U “undetectable equals untransmittable” with all major expert groups, even entire countries (e.g. Canada) being official signatory to the statement. A group resistant to staying updated will not look good for the adult industry in the future. The event could, in fact be weaponised by anti-porn campaigns, stating porn is not staying up to date with HIV medical professionals.

This is not an issue dependant on gender or sexuality, it is a matter of safety, something with conclusive answers now.

Denying other HIV- cert holders their right to choose a U+ scene partner, or for models to be informed of up to date HIV information; is irresponsible. Not that HIV is not a death sentence these days. People on effective treatment live happy normal long lives and sex lives, even having HIV- children.

There have been U+ performers in areas of porn for many years now. Any group acting to obstruct education and discriminating against U+ models and those wanting to work with them, needs to reconsider their actions. For both now and the impact of their harm on the future.

Sincerely

Jason Domino
Sexual health public speaker Healthcare and governmental adult industry community advisor,
Founder of porn4prep.com