Thread by @RGC_BPPA

When the evidence you offer to state your case against #UndetectableEqualsUntransmittable and the PASS protocols actually goes the other way....

[a thread]

This is a screenshot of the response that APAG posted at their website from a CDC spokesman about their inquiry about undetectable viral load.

(Taken from apagunion.com/2018/05/01/apa…)

But let's look at the "limitations" that were quoted by CDC and are being used by APAG to dismiss the studies validating HIV+ treatments, shall we?

The email response referenced two sources as their "limitations".

The first is basically a brief overview by CDC on the use of "treatment as prevention" through reducing the viral load to undetectable & untransmittable levels.

Here's some snippage of the main paragraphs, with special emphasis highlighted by me.

Source: cdc.gov/hiv/risk/art/i…

The only "limitation" that I see here is the statement that "more research is needed for other ways."

Nothing invalidating #UndetectableEqualsUntransmittable or ART therapy for reducing HIV loads yet.

But, maybe the other reference source could prove APAG correct in their concerns, right?

The second link is to a PDF document from CDC issued in December of last year reviewing the results of clinical trials involving ART/PrEP treatments of HIV+ people in reducing viral loads.

That particcular document can be downloaded and read here:

cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/a…

First screenshots are from the beginning, where the article summarizes the results of the latest testing of TasP treatments using PrEP and ART.

As mentioned before, the results are pretty positive.

The fact that they found only 8 couples out of the 100's who utilized these TasP methods (and those 8 were those that didn't achieve full viral suppression) should be an affirmation that TasP, when done properly, does work.

Remember, this is without adding in condoms or PrEP.

https://twitter.com/RGC_BPPA/status/1091144691276529666

The "money graph", if you will:

To translate what that graph says into layman's English: if you take ART correctly and reduce your HIV viral load to undetectable levels, you have a 99.79% (for gay men) to 99.84% (for hetero couples) rate of NOT infecting your partners.

Some failure rate, right?

Now, to be fair, the CDC does include one caveat to all this good news: those using ART/PrEP have to stay on their treatments in order to maintain their viral loads below transmissable levels and not infect their partners.

So...how does this relate to the all the beefing from APAG?

The PASS protocols use RNA testing (via Aptima) as their primary means of *initial* detection of the HIV virus. If someone is found to be "reactive", then antibody testing through ELISA is then done for verification.

The beautiful thing about Aptima/RNA testing for porn performers is that it can detect the HIV virus in the RNA stream as early as 4 to 7 days after initial infection. That's why it's offered along with 2 week testing by PASS.

By contrast, typical ELISA tests for HIV that test the antibodies for HIV loads are only accurate up to 6-8 weeks, because that's how long it takes for the HIV antigens to build up in the bloodstream before ELISA detects them.

Now, recently there have been developments of new generation ELISA tests that are more convenient to offer (swabs rather than drawing of blood) and offer quicker results. The accuracy of those tests, though, have not changed, and simply don't compare to RNA/Aptima.

That may not be important to someone who already has the virus, but for screening out those who do have it from infecting other performers in the process of shooting live porn? It's a big fucking deal. (No pun intended. Maybe.)

The fundamental issue behind all this hullaballo over HIV+ testing is that "crossover" (read, gay and bi) performers who may be HIV+ are seeking to protect their jobs AND hopefully not infect others.

ART and PrEP offer them the best option offered them to safely continue.

Reducing their viral load to the point where they don't infect others and they clear the PASS standards so they can safely shoot porn with those who explicitly consent to shoot with them would be a great thing for society and the industry, you think?

The concern about "HIV+ performers being allowed to shoot porn without prior consent" reflects a natural and legitimate fear from performers to protect themselves. I have absolutely no beef with or objection to that at all. Gotta do what you gotta do.

The problem, though, comes when some people start exploiting that fear to spread rampant homophobia and old-school right-wing memes about gay men infecting innocent performers with HIV. Or, relying on junk science to sell thinly veiled hidden agendas.

Let us not forget that APAG began as an organization which initially backed Proposition 60, the condom mandate/barrier protection initiative from @AIDSHealthcare and CalOSHA; Only after performers revealed the payola that they were getting from AHF, they switched their stance.

@AIDSHealthcare Let us also not forget that one of the chief officials in APAG just so happens to be the one with a major vendetta against FSC/PASS, and also one who has not been immune to rampant gay bashing and even slut baiting her critics.

@AIDSHealthcare And there's also a bit of an financial incentive in their assaults on PASS. The "medical doctor" they use to justify their criticism is a general practicioner who's only expertise in HIV was counseling kids. But, he's the one offering the APAG "alternative" to PASS, right?

@AIDSHealthcare From what I am seeing, their proposed alternative is to kick out Aptima/RNA testing completely, and rely solely on ELISA/antibody testing for HIV, backed up by condoms.

Which, BTW, is also the stated position of AHF in their condom mandate.

See a trend here, folks?

@AIDSHealthcare The party line here is that Aptima does not "detect" the HIV virus enough for their liking, but the 4th gen ELISA testing will.

The actual evidence proves otherwise. 4-7 DAYS for Aptima compared to 6-8 WEEKS for ELISA.

Yeah.

@AIDSHealthcare Now, ELISA 4gen may be cheaper and more accessible and less of a pain than Aptima blood lettings every 2 weeks; but is that worth increasing the risk of infection based on trusting that the condom won't break?

@AIDSHealthcare I'm of the belief that all the excessive ranting about HIV+ folks infecting porn performers is really a combination of rampant homophobia and simply kicking out PASS in order to get paid.

@AIDSHealthcare Because if by some chance the AHF/CalOSHA standard of a condom mandate + "barrier protections" + ELISA testing only is imposed on the industry, some performers will lose their jobs, and some others will be lined up to replace them.

@AIDSHealthcare And those others will be recruited to become free advertising for the condom companies and AHF, all in the name of promoting "safer sex".

The problem is, though, that everyone else will be driven underground into much unsafer venues.

@AIDSHealthcare Nothing at all against promoting "safer sex", but it should be up to the performers to find their own ways to protect themselves from STI's like HIV.

@AIDSHealthcare The FSC/PASS proposal of a separate pool for those talent who wish to shoot porn with HIV+ folk who have been proven to reduce their viral load to uninfectable/undetectable levels, in my view, is a decent compromise that satisfies everyone.

However, it is still a PROPOSAL.

@AIDSHealthcare Absolutely not a thing has changed about the PASS protocols for the regular pool of porn talent, and nothing will change tomorrow either.

You test HIV+, you get pulled from the database and you don't shoot porn. END. OF. STORY.

@AIDSHealthcare Nothing about taking PrEP or ART will change that standard. If a person does lag in keeping up with their meds and triggers a positive, he or she will still be removed from the available talent pool. And, his/her partners will be tested as well.

@AIDSHealthcare There will always be, of course, the rare risk that someone will get infected and get past the PASS protocols. But, since that hasn't happened EVER since the PASS standards were imposed in 2012, what's the chance of it happening today?

@AIDSHealthcare The fact still remains true that there has been NO case of any HIV+ infection on an hetero set since the Darren James/Lara Roxx incident in 2004. Derrick Burts and Cameron Bay were infected off the clock in non-PASS monitored shoots.

@AIDSHealthcare The fact also remains that in every case of HIV infection that was detected by the PASS protocols, there was no indication of on set infection to others.

And that doesn't include the two false negatives, either.

@AIDSHealthcare I acknowledge that there are performers whom I admire and respect that do question what I posted and do believe that some changes are needed. Fair enough. My goal is not to change their minds, just offer actual facts to counter the propaganda.

@AIDSHealthcare To conclude this, because I have to leave for work:

Concern about getting infected with HIV/AIDS is legitimate. Wanting the best form of protection is more than legitimate.
Using such fears to sell quackery and homophobia and attack a good system? Not so much.

#CestFinis

@AIDSHealthcare @threadreaderapp Unroll, please