HIV status documentation

[hiJinX]

Is there any kind of documentation you can carry around to assure a client of your HIV status?

Other STDs even?

Seems like something useful for those who are sexually active and especially beneficial as a business practice for escorts and clients. It might remove some level of worry about the encounter regardless of the precautions being taken.

 

Like pornstars who are required to be tested and clear of stds I wonder if it might be beneficial for something along the same lines to be set up for sex workers in general.

[Prime Muscle]

There is absolutely no documentation. For starters, any type of paperwork can be forged. Secondly, any test is only good until you walk out the door and play with someone else (and if you play with the medical technichan -- the shelf life is real small).

[woodlawn]

>Is there any kind of documentation you can carry around to

>assure a client of your HIV status?

>Other STDs even?

>Seems like something useful for those who are sexually active

>and especially beneficial as a business practice for escorts

>and clients. It might remove some level of worry about the

>encounter regardless of the precautions being taken.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that HIV tests show the patient's status for some period prior to the date of the test, and that it is possible that the patient has been exposed to HIV prior to the test but so recently that antibodies will not yet show up on a test. Is my information out of date?

 

>Like pornstars who are required to be tested and clear of stds

 

They are? I didn't know that.

[hiJinX]

>>Like pornstars who are required to be tested and clear of

>stds

>

>They are? I didn't know that.

>

 

I've seen/read about people porn performers (male and female), especially when they are contracted to a particular company, that are required to have regular examinations and testing (for both stds and drug use) in order to keep working in the industry.

Makes sense. Due to the nature of the business and the frequency of working with different partners, one infected party could quickly spread diseases to others in the community, especially when you consider the lack of condom usage in porn.

[Guest Merlin]

They usually say that it takes 3-6months for the HIV virus to cause the body to start producing antibodies which can then be detected in the test--which does not detect the virus, but does detect the antibody. Obviously no card or document could prove that the person has not contracted the disease within the period 3-6 months prior to the test and subsequent to it, so it would not be worth much and could be forged. So it could cause a great deal of harm by leading people to relax their guard against unsafe sex.

[+ deej]

>Like pornstars who are required to be tested and clear of stds

 

There is no such required testing.

 

No studio (in gay porn, anyway) requires testing. It would be a civil rights violation AND WOULDN'T PROVE ANYTHING for reasons others on this thread have given.

 

Models are required to sign a statement that they are aware of the risk of STD's. That's all.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

HIV 101

 

With health care workers, one of the tests which is done is the PCR or bDNA (aka Viral Load) tests. This measures the presence of free floating virema in the blood. The absence of any viral particles does not in and of itself mean that the person is HIV negative. In point of fact, this test may provide false positives and thus it is not approved for diagnosis but is used as a tool to monitor disease progression. However, as it detects the presence of viral particles, it would not have the window (of three to six months) for the presence of HIV antibodies, which is what is measured by an HIV test.

 

While some of this information may be more technical for most people, there is some excellent explanation of what Viral Load testing is, how is words with HIV tests, what the pros and cons are of the various measurement tools and other general and specific information:

 

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Archive/TestResults/

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Hot AND Smart

 

>There is absolutely no documentation. . . .

 

Bobby took the words out of mouth. And used short, snappy sentences....

[+ Charlie]

RE: HIV 101

 

A friend of mine who has had AIDS (frequent fullblown symptoms, such as pneumocystis pneumonia and KS, not just an HIV+ test result) for more than 15 years is currently taking a medication that has reduced his viral load to undetectable in the most recent test. In other words, no one-time test result can be trusted as proof that someone does not have an STD.

[hiJinX]

>>Like pornstars who are required to be tested and clear of

>stds

>

>There is no such required testing.

>

>No studio (in gay porn, anyway) requires testing. It would be

>a civil rights violation AND WOULDN'T PROVE ANYTHING for

>reasons others on this thread have given.

>

>Models are required to sign a statement that they are aware of

>the risk of STD's. That's all.

 

Perhaps it's not the case in gay porn. But I've heard numerous straight porn stars (male and female) say it was the case in interviews. That regular required testing was part and parcel of working under contract with particular companies.

Does that make it 100% accurate, no, but its better than nothing.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Viral Replication 101

 

THIS is my problem with trying to write brief sentences:

 

>A friend of mine who has had AIDS (frequent fullblown

>symptoms, such as pneumocystis pneumonia and KS, not just an

>HIV+ test result) for more than 15 years is currently taking a

>medication that has reduced his viral load to undetectable in

>the most recent test. In other words, no one-time test result

>can be trusted as proof that someone does not have an STD.

 

As this is an important subject for which we all should be correctly informed, a few clarifications.

 

1. HIV is a blood borne viral infection. It can be and often is transmitted sexually but calling it an STD is a mischaracterization.

 

2. If I was unclear, I regret this. I was not suggesting that viral load testing be provided as proof that someone did not have HIV or any other disease. In fact, I stated: "The absence of any viral particles does not in and of itself mean that the person is HIV negative."

 

3. Viral load testing measures free floating viral particles in your blood. While it is frequently believed that HIV+ individuals, including those with symptomatic or full blown AIDS, are less contagious and thus less able to infect others when their viral load measurements are "undetectable," an undetectable viral load test ONLY means this blood work assay ("test") is not sensitive ("does not measure") viral particles below a certain level in free floating blood. What this often suggests to physicians is that HIV is not able to replicate in the individual tested, at least not to a degree where the immune system is further compromised or health is adversely impacted.

 

NO physician or scientist would ever suggest that an undetectable viral load in an HIV+ individual meant that this individual COULD NOT or WOULD NOT transmit HIV to another person. It is theorized that the risk is highly unlikely and, for example, heterosexual couples in these circumstances have conceived and given birth to babies who have tested HIV negative even though one or even both of the parents were HIV+, but (and this is that big BUT), there is no indication that this outcome can be or will be replicated in all such instances.

 

Blood is not the only places where scientist have measured or located this virus. It is also located in sanctuary sites, lymph nodes, lymph tissues and other parts of the bodies which are not measured by testing which is readily available outside a scientific clinical trial environment. One such sanctuary site in men has been the testicles. Even in men with undetectable viral load, scientist have found significant measureable virus in seminal fluids. While it is now theorized that a man who has had an undetectable viral load and otherwise stable lab work for a significant length of time is unlikely to transmit the virus, those are important words:

 

theorized

significant

unlikely

 

As with other things in life, there is no guarantee.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Better Than?

 

>>>Like pornstars who are required to be tested and clear of

>>stds

>>

>>There is no such required testing.

>>

>>No studio (in gay porn, anyway) requires testing. It would

>be

>>a civil rights violation AND WOULDN'T PROVE ANYTHING for

>>reasons others on this thread have given.

>>

>>Models are required to sign a statement that they are aware

>of

>>the risk of STD's. That's all.

>

>Perhaps it's not the case in gay porn. But I've heard numerous

>straight porn stars (male and female) say it was the case in

>interviews. That regular required testing was part and parcel

>of working under contract with particular companies.

>Does that make it 100% accurate, no, but its better than

>nothing.

 

What is "better than nothing" is to be informed of risk factors and to conduct a risk assessment of one's own behavior, to understand the possible means of transmission and the behavior which you, as an individual, often or may find yourself engaging in, to be informed of ways to minimize any such routes of transmission, and to practice them routinely and regularly.

 

Finally, you should accept and take responsibility for yourself and the consequences of any actions you may or may not undertake without regard to the honesty of any statement, document, or evidence to the contrary from any other individual. If your research and risk assessment tells you option A may be risky for you, it is risky for you with ANYONE and EVERYONE.

 

Act accordingly.

[Nvr2Thick]

>Perhaps it's not the case in gay porn. But I've heard numerous

>straight porn stars (male and female) say it was the case in

>interviews. That regular required testing was part and parcel

>of working under contract with particular companies.

>Does that make it 100% accurate, no, but its better than

>nothing.

 

I have also read about regular STD and HIV testing in straight porn. Still, turning up a positive test leads to restricting the performer and his/her recent on screen partners from working. The partners have to test clean for a period of time before they are allowed to work.

 

The supposed self-policing in the porn industry is recognized as being capable of limiting the spread of disease, not eliminating it. If a performer were infected with HIV, for example, he or she could easily spread it to several others before testing positive. There are plenty of other opportunities for breakdown or fraud in this testing process.

 

Straight porn star Marc Wallice made the news a few years back for allegedly forging negative tests after testing positive for HIV, and continuing to work in flicks, many condomless.

 

Unless you truly know everything about a person's periodic test results and recent sexual behavior the only accurate HIV statuses are "POZ" and "unknown". Maybe if guys carried "POZ" credentials you'd be more likely to make the safe sex decisions up front that you should be practicing in either case.

[VaHawk]

RE: Viral Replication 101

 

Excellent post Franco! What really amazes me are the number of people out there engaging in sexual activities who don't bother to educate themselves on AIDS, STD's, Herpes and Hepatitis, etc. I don't really understand that.

 

But then again, when something happens, they then turn around and blame the other person, when it was their own lack of initiative in learning the facts and their own actions that is to blame. What is with the document of proof of being HIV- or STD free? It is not worth the paper it is printed on, and no person should be willing to risk his life on such a flimsy premise.

[+ deej]

>Does that make it 100% accurate, no, but its better than

>nothing.

 

No, it makes it absolutely 100% nothing.

 

There is absolutely no way to verify that a model is not HIV+ AT THIS MOMENT when the dick is going in the hole. It would be futile, and cost a huge amount of money, so nobody does it.

 

What you've heard is pure PR drivel, I suspect. No porn director on a deadline is going to turn away a model because s/he doesn't have the most recent certification. They've got a video to do, dammit.

 

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but testing proves nothing and certified testing proves certified nothing.

[hiJinX]

>

>I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but testing

>proves nothing and certified testing proves certified

>nothing.

 

Okay that's a bit uncalled for. Testing proves nothing...so why get tested at all? Just be ignorant of your health status (and that of a partner) to the best of your ability? Documents can be forged..so why have any documents? (passport, drivers license, blood donor cards, birth certificates).

Porn stars get tested (whether or not you think they *really* care about the results in the industry)

Brothels have doctors come in regularly to check the girls for stds.

 

There IS some value to being tested. Saying there is not is more of a fantasy world (albeit jaded and cynical) than asking "Is there some form of documentation given when you get your test results".

[woodlawn]

>

>>

>>I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but testing

>>proves nothing and certified testing proves certified

>>nothing.

 

>Okay that's a bit uncalled for.

 

Deej has a tendency to get nasty with anyone who brings up this subject. You'll get used to it -- or you could just ignore him.

 

> Testing proves nothing...so

>why get tested at all?

 

That's not what is being said. What's being said is that the test is retrospective and that a negative result does not prove the patient is negative NOW, merely that he WAS negative at some point in time prior to the test. So if your goal is to allow an escort to assure clients that he is negative when he actually sees them, the test can't accomplish that. The technology to do what you want to do doesn't exist yet. Get it?

 

>There IS some value to being tested.

 

Again, because of the test's limitations, the only real value is in a positive result. Unless you stopped having sex many months before the test was administered, a negative result doesn't really tell you anything.

[nate_sf]

I think your desire to have some kind of documentation to assure clients of HIV status is understandable, but to answer your original question the posts here have very clearly demonstrated that no, there is no kind of documentation that can certify HIV- status. Nice concept, but not possible.

 

This isn't the same as not being tested or emphasizing the importance of being tested, though. We're talking about two different things: being tested tells you what you might have been exposed to up to a point in time, and is very important for knowing one's health issues and how it may impact others. But the act of being tested merely provides you with information, not a certification. I've had clients tell me they've "just been tested" and "are OK," as if that's supposed to certify that's it's OK to do risky things. It's not... all it really says is "keep up the good work."

[giovoni]

What an interesting thread. To read it you would think that the consensus here is that any negative test is worthless.

 

I personally don't leave my doctor disappointed that I've gotten a worthless test every time I test HIV-. There is GREAT value to continuing to test negative. If you are practicing safe® sex the negative results every 6 months are invaluable encouragement to practicing something that is increasingly ignored by some gay men. If you know someone for a period of years and he has continued to test negative you also can start to trust him as someone who takes care of himself and takes precautions to insure safety. That doesn't mean you can start barebacking him. It does mean that you may be less likely to catch other STD's from him that condoms can't protect against or that are more easily passed on.

 

I'm always suspicious of people who want documentation of my HIV(-) status. First of all I don't have it and second what behavior would you change if you knew my last test WAS negative? If this is a prelude to believing we can have 'safe' bareback sex then I'd rather the technology NEVER be invented to tell us what everyone's status is exactly. What happens if you can test HIV status similar to glucose monitoring? You could stick your finger get an instant result, both participants come up negative and you fuck like rabbits without protection. WHAT FUN .. . until the next disease works it's way through the world and another generation of us is decimated. With HIV we were fortunate that the disease progression and relative difficulty of spread, especially with safe sex, that medical science was able to develop treatments and prevention measures. With some other new disease we may not be so lucky.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[VaHawk]

>It does mean that you may

>be less likely to catch other STD's from him that condoms

>can't protect against or that are more easily passed on.

 

As Franco said in his post HIV is not an STD! I know most people associate the transmission with sex, but there are other ways including being born with the infection.

 

>With HIV we were fortunate

>that the disease progression and relative difficulty of

>spread, especially with safe sex, that medical science was

>able to develop treatments and prevention measures. With some

>other new disease we may not be so lucky.

 

Now were you up late when you posted this and thus not thinking clearly? AIDS is on the increase in this country, as you probably know, and is an epidemic of major proportions in Africa and Asia where the "so called" treatements you refer to are not readily available or affordable. Also the treatments that halt the progression of the disease do not work for everyone and do not work forever for someone infected. That is why there are a number of drugs/combination of drugs treatments to halt the progression. As far as I know, there are no PREVENTION measures other than to stop engaging in activities known to be risky.

 

IMO, there has never been anything even remotely fortunate or lucky about AIDS. x(

[giovoni]

>As Franco said in his post HIV is not an STD! I know most

>people associate the transmission with sex, but there are

>other ways including being born with the infection.

 

Did Franco really say this? He was mistaken as well then.

Gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis and every other STD can be transmitted in ways other then sex including vertical transmission to newborns that you allude to above. However the ability to be transmitted in ways other then sex doesn't preclude a disease from being classified an STD. Indeed I don't know exactly how something is classified as an STD but it probably has to do with the predominant mode of spread. I'm certain that the predominant mode of spread for HIV is still, as it has always been, sexual.

 

Here's an even easier way to decide if it's an STD. When you have SEX with someone what diseases do you worry TRANSMITTING? Gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, several strains of hepatitis, herpes, condyloma, giardiasis, various others .... uhm... another one maybe? ... uhm.. how about ... uhm HIV?? If you ever write a paper about STD's and don't mention HIV you'll get an F I guarantee you.

 

>Now were you up late when you posted this and thus not

>thinking clearly? AIDS is on the increase in this country, as

>you probably know, and is an epidemic of major proportions in

>Africa and Asia where the "so called" treatments you refer to

>are not readily available or affordable.

 

That's true.. we in the USA are even more fortunate then most that treatments and prevention are available. If you don't think safer sex prevents HIV spread then go read more.

 

>IMO, there has never been anything even remotely fortunate or

>lucky about AIDS. x(

 

You're absolutely right there haven't been. You seem to think I have no experience with watching the terrible death that HIV/AIDS tortures people with. I assure you that this isn't the case.

 

However, imagine a world where HIV was as easy to transmit as gonorrhea. Or if it was as deadly as cyanide poisoning. My point, which you seem to need to read again was that the next new STD if one emerges could very well be easier to transmit, EVEN harder to treat then HIV, and/or more quickly terminal. People who think barebacking strangers is ok as long as they don't have HIV expose themselves and everyone else to this kind of risk.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[+ deej]

>There IS some value to being tested. Saying there is not is

>more of a fantasy world (albeit jaded and cynical) than asking

>"Is there some form of documentation given when you get your

>test results".

 

Now your fantasy world is misinterpreting my meaning. (As well as any animus. Don't project your own hostility on the things I say.)

 

The question at hand is whether some certification can be provided to clients that the man he's about to have sex with is negative.

 

There isn't. The technology does not exist.

 

As for testing, of course it's an important part of an individual's healthcare regime. As are lung Xrays for smokers and prostate exams for men past their mid-30's.

 

There is a real difference between personal healthcare measures and certifying an individual as HIV- RIGHT NOW to a potential sex partner. For the latter, testing IS USELESS. And it's more dangerous than useless because guys like you WANT to believe it's useful.

[VaHawk]

>People who think barebacking strangers is ok as long as they don't have HIV expose themselves and everyone else to this kind of risk. >

 

Well, man I do believe we are saying the same thing, just saying it differently.

 

I never meant to imply that safe sex prevents the spread of AIDS, nor that AIDS is not spread by sex (and in that sense could be considered an STD). My point about prevention came from my inference to your comment about scientific advances in prevention, which to me indicated some kind of vaccine.

 

And as I'm sure you know, in the early years of AIDS it was indeed often a sentence of death. And above all, I was not implying that you know nothing/nor have experienced the devastation of AIDS. I would never assume that about anyone.

 

I just thought and still do that using the words fortunate and lucky in conjunction with the word AIDS was a poor choice of words, regardless of the innocent intent in which they were used to illustrate a point.

[giovoni]

>Well, man I do believe we are saying the same thing, just

>saying it differently.

 

If only we could get Islam, Christianity and Judaism to say this so readily

 

>My point about prevention came

>from my inference to your comment about scientific advances in

>prevention, which to me indicated some kind of vaccine.

 

No I just mean that many scientific studies done with good research designs have shown that safe sex is very good if not foolproof prevention of spread. I'm also speaking epidemiologically and not individually. I know that if you are one of the smaller number of people who contract HIV while still practicing safe sex you might well resent anyone extolling it's virtues.

 

>And as I'm sure you know, in the early years of AIDS it was

>Indeed often a sentence of death. And above all, I was not

>implying that you know nothing/nor have experienced the

>Devastation of AIDS. I would never assume that about anyone.

 

In the early years it was more of a death sentence then an actual death sentence. I realize that as do you I see.

 

>I just thought and still do that using the words fortunate and

>lucky in conjunction with the word AIDS was a poor choice of

>words, regardless of the innocent intent in which they were

>Used to illustrate a point.

 

Give me your email address and I'll send my next post to you so you can check my choice of words before I post them :-P

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[VaHawk]

>Give me your email address and I'll send my next post to you so you can check my choice of words before I post them :-P >

 

Two thumbs up TOUCHE