LUKE IS BACK IS A SITE FOR ADULTS ONLY. All posts, stories, opinions, comments etc. on the LukeisBack (LIB for short) web site are not necessarily the views of those who run, advertise on or own Lukeisback.com. Likewise those that run or own Luke is Back will not be held liable for any content or comments contained on this site. Lukeisback.com believes in Freedom of Speech, and as such allows all opinions to be represented and posted by their authors autonomously. Comments are NOT moderated on a regular basis. We strongly discourage the use of racial slurs, accusations of criminal activity and/or use of legal names for those that use stage names. We reserve the right to edit or delete any post for any reason or terminate anyone's ability to post for any reason. After all, we do pay the bills around here. Long story short, you are adults, so act like it.

Adult DVD Deals





Gay Men Can’t Donate Blood-Law May Change

Federal ban on gay men’s blood donation to be reconsidered

By Madison Park,  of CNN

Since 1983, men who have had sex with men have not been able to donate blood
With better tests available, some say lifetime gay men ban is "scientifically unwarranted"
Statistics show that HIV is higher among gay population

(CNN) — When Mark Shields started his job at the American Red Cross in Madison, Wisconsin, he rolled up his sleeve to give blood. It made sense. Part of his job was encouraging the public to donate and supporting the organization’s lifesaving mission.

Before he could give, he was told that his blood could never be accepted. Because he’s gay.

"I was 23 at the time. I was just coming out," he said. "I was trying to be part of our organization’s mission and feeling like I can’t do this. … I certainly felt put on the spot. It was a bad feeling for a lot of reasons."

Under Food and Drug Administration rules, men who have had sex — even once — with another man since 1977 are not permitted to give blood. The rule was implemented in 1983, sparked by concerns that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was tainting the blood supply. Screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not been developed. The policy was seen as a safety measure.

But today, with the availability of more accurate testing, activists, blood organizations and several U.S. senators say the lifetime ban is "medically and scientifically unwarranted" and are calling for change.

The Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability will consider the issue in meetings June 10 and 11 in Rockville, Maryland. The committee makes recommendations to the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.

Medical opinions vary; some experts say that lifting the ban could pose health risks to blood recipients.

The Human Rights Campaign, the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers and AABB, formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks, support easing the lifetime ban to allow gay blood donors. In a joint statement, the blood organizations said that safety was the first priority and that potential donors should be screened more fairly, regardless of sexual orientation.

About three months ago, Sen. John Kerry and 17 other senators signed a letter to the FDA blasting its "outdated" policy.

Gay men, including those who are in monogamous relationships, are forbidden from contributing blood for the rest of their lives, while "a heterosexual who has had sex with a prostitute need only wait a year [before giving blood]. That does not strike me as a sound scientific conclusion," Kerry wrote in a March 9 letter.

The FDA defended its current policy in an e-mailed statement to CNN.com: The policy, it said, is "based on scientific data that show that certain medical, behavioral and geographical factors are associated with increased risk of transfusion transmitted diseases."

The agency has been "taking into account the current body of scientific information, and we are considering the possibility of pursuing alternative strategies that maintain blood safety," the statement said.

The FDA retained the ban on gay blood donors after reviewing the issue in 2000 and 2006.

Health statistics show that men who have sex with men have a higher rate of diseases including HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B. Gay men who would be likely to donate have an HIV prevalence that is over 15 times higher than that of the general population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"I do not see this being a gay rights issue," said Dr. Jay Brooks, professor of pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, adding that he favors gay marriage and gays serving in the military.

The issue of blood donation has "nothing to do with someone being gay. Any group that’s epidemiologically at risk of making blood unsafe, it’s unfortunate. … It’s a matter of epidemiology."

The different standards between gay and straight people exists because the risk of HIV is much lower in heterosexuals, he said.

"The interest of the recipient is greater than any donor," Brooks said. "I’d hate to tell the one person who got HIV through a blood transfusion, ‘Sorry, we changed the regulation.’ "

These days, blood screenings are so effective in detecting diseases that the risk of such infection is very small, said Dr. Norbert Gilmore, a professor and clinician at the McGill University Health Center in Canada.

The blood donations go through HIV antigen screening (to detect antibodies produced by the body in response to the virus) and nucleic acid testing. However, there is a "window period" for about two weeks after an individual becomes infected with HIV when these tests cannot detect the virus.

But that risk of this infection is "so small, we should look at the day-to-day realities rather than those infinitesimal risks," said Gilmore, whose research published this week in the Canadian Medical Association Journal criticized the ban in Canada and the U.S. as unscientific.

The most important issue in this debate should be the safety of the patients, said Mark Skinner, president of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

"This isn’t an issue just about HIV. It isn’t a gay issue," he said. "This is an issue that relates to safety in the blood supply. Those decisions should be made on science, not based on societal concerns. We readily recognize the MSM [men who have sex with men] ban is discriminatory, but it’s discriminatory for a reason.

"What we’re looking for is a thoughtful review. We’re not opposed to the change. We want to understand what additional risks patients might be asked to accept," he said.

Shawn Decker, a hemophiliac who contracted HIV through contaminated blood products, said he supports allowing gay men to donate blood.

Potential donors should be screened based on risky behaviors such as unprotected sex or intravenous drug use, not sexual orientation, he said.

Decker said he was looking forward to a time when "those very allies and friends" in the gay community "are allowed to pony up and give the blood that is used to create my treatments for hemophilia."

 Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/25/gay.blood.donation.ban/index.html

The following two tabs change content below.
Lukeisback.com offers the latest and greatest in adult Industry news, porn star interviews and other related stories.

Latest posts by LUKE IS BACK (see all)


Eva Cash - The Hottest New Affiliate Program











You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

42 Responses to “Gay Men Can’t Donate Blood-Law May Change”

  1. whitey Says:

    Yep, and be careful: You might get infected with homosexuality.
    This seems so stupid to me, if I´m a male who sleeps around, I can donate blood at anytime.
    But if I´m gay it´s: “No way buddy, we don´t want pink blood.”
    I bet we´d have major problems if gay men won´t donate blood, I think they´re won´t be enough blood to help.

  2. The President Says:

    Just an example of an outdated restriction. Progress where the government is concerned happens at a snail’s pace, that’s the one thing that always rings true. If this has been the case since 1983, 2010 may be too soon for the government agencies to adapt their policies on this one. Give them another 10-20 years to sit on their asses. As long as they have jobs, they are safe.

  3. Tweets that mention ANW: Gay Men Can’t Donate Blood-Law May Change: Federal ban on gay men’s blood donation to be reconsidered By Madi... -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Adult News Wire, ADULT PORN NEWS XXX. ADULT PORN NEWS XXX said: #ADULT #NEWS – Gay Men Can’t Donate Blood-Law May Change: Federal ban on gay men’s blood donation to b… http://bit.ly/dxKs9l – #porn #sex [...]

  4. joe know Says:

    The most important sentence in this entire article is…..”The interest of the RECIPIENT is greater than any donor.’

    The second most importan is…’This issue should be based on science, not societal concerns.”

    “The m ost imprtant issue in this debate should be the safety of the patients”

    This is not the proper forum to address the issue of gay bashing, it has nothing to do with sexual preference, the safety of the perons who recieves the blood FAR outwieghs any percieved right to donate blood.

  5. The President Says:

    ——The blood donations go through HIV antigen screening (to detect antibodies produced by the body in response to the virus) and nucleic acid testing. However, there is a “window period” for about two weeks after an individual becomes infected with HIV when these tests cannot detect the virus.

    Fine. “So Mr. Gay Man, what have you done in the last 2 weeks? You haven’t had sex with anybody? You have only had sex with your monogamous partner? Ok, that puts you in the same category as everyone else.” Wow, that was real tough. Give it another 10-20 years of study. In 2030 it will be someone else’s problem.

  6. President4Life Says:

    Um, the odds of getting AIDS from “sleeping around” as a straight man are very low. Let’s get real and stop the PC shit. HIV/AIDS effects mostly gay men and IV drug users in this country. Around the world, different story, but here in America, it’s those two groups, almost exclusively.

    What are you gonna do now, get mad because IV drug users are being “discriminated” against?

    Get real.

  7. The President Says:

    The expert here said there is a “2 week window” that is the problem regarding HIV. Okay, so hey, let’s make it 3 weeks to be on the even more safe side. Blood can only be donated once every 2 months. PC shit has nothing to do with it. All blood is tested and cleared the same way. Just allow for the window period, adjust the risk factor questionaire accordingly and move on. But this is the government we’re discussing here.

  8. jeremiahsteele Says:

    One of the main crux’s of the HIV/AID$ Scam has to do with it’s orgins. It was originally called GRID, which stood for “Gay Related Immunity Deficiency”. Common sense demands, regardless of your sexual orientation, to cry out “How the fuck does being gay cause immune deficiency?” Then IV drug users got linked with gays because their immune systems were crashing. But wait a minute!… Somehow the doctors refused to acknowledge DRUG USE as a cause of their immune deficiency!! Heroin addicts dying because of a virus and drug use having nothing to do with it??

    I minored in political science in college but this is a different kind of political “science”. I’ve heard many gays say that in addition to multiple sex partners they were inhaling poppers and other hardcore recreational drugs at a relentless pace.
    But in 1984, a man announced (who would later be found guilty of scientific misconduct) that AIDS is “likely” caused by a retrovirus called HTLV3, later to be changed to the more hip and ominous sounding HIV and then the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry was born, usurping more money than all other diseases combined!

    Yes the anus has only 1 layer of lining and the vag has 3, so gays are more susceptible for catching shit, but I’ve been told by gays who have friends who have died or who are dying of AIDS that all the ones who were sick before being diagnosed with AIDS were all major recreational drug users (just like IV users). But there’s no money to vaccuum suck out of suckers in the name of finding a cure if we already know what the solution is or might be: stop excessive drug use!

    AIDS in Africa is just the same diseases that 3rd world nation has been dying of for years, plus they have what is called “presumptive diagnosis”; based on symptoms they also get from being malnourished, drinking dirty water, etc. That’s why it’s evenly distributed amongst the sexes there while it’s still mostly a male, homosexual and IV user disease in the States.

    There is no open forum and debate on this issue because it would fuck up the foundations’ money vaccuum.

  9. joe know Says:

    Presidient,
    The best way to make a point in this type of debate is to make it personal.

    If your child needed a blodd transfusion and you had the choie, which would you choose.
    A. Blood from a heterosexual donor who is married and has had one partner for the last 20 years or
    B. A homosexual whose last gay sex encounter was three weeks ago(the anmount of time you say is sufficient)

    C,You have no right to know where that donation came from.

    The answer is “A”,,,

    There is no right to donate blood. NOBODY is harmed by NOT donating blood. Thousand of donations every year are discarded becuase people lie about their history, but luckily, the testing screens them out.(Porno Dan)

    Blood products are pooled together before testing..NOT every individual donation is tested seperately. When one of the “pool’ samples tests positive for something, all the indvidual donations that made up that pool are discarded. One donor, with lets cay chlamydia, can cause the discarding of up to 25 to 20 individual donations.

    Wasnt there a story just a short time ago about two porn whores donating blood at childrens hospital? Do you folks here who support Gay donations aslo suupport prostitute donatins? Just asking.

    THE SAFETY OF THE RECIPIENTS FAR OUTWEIGHS THE DESIRE ON ANY DONOR.

  10. The President Says:

    —–If your child needed a blodd transfusion and you had the choie, which would you choose.
    A. Blood from a heterosexual donor who is married and has had one partner for the last 20 years or
    B. A homosexual whose last gay sex encounter was three weeks ago(the anmount of time you say is sufficient)

    I would choose A as a first choice, yes. BUT there is no reason not to have that second choice. It’s that simple. And it’s not me that’s determining the safety window, it’s the expert in the article. The regulation should follow what the expert concludes regarding safety, change the acceptance for gay blood to 2-3 weeks rather than an unnecessary lifetime exclusion.

  11. jeremiahsteele Says:

    Isn’t the available donor blood critically low?

    Why not just do blood tests on those who would donate blood, regardless of their orientation or claimed orientation? If a man in need of donor blood dies because he could not get a blood donor, but could’ve got blood from someone who was gay, then what good was it to have “protected” that now dead man from a possibly riskier blood donor?

    We should stop living life in ignorance.
    Ignorance is only bliss before the shit hits.

  12. President4Life Says:

    Because HIV/AIDS is a disease that can hide for years, that’s why.

    Why isn’t anybody asking why IV drug users are banned? Why not just test their blood and once they’re deemed clean let them donate also.

    They even tell people with tattoos to wait 12 months afterward before they can give blood again.

    If your behavior, whether it’s IV drug use or gay male on male sexual actions that make you more at risk, then so be it.

    Don’t you know what would happen if some kid turned up HIV positive or with Hepatitis, because the virus was undetectable at the time of donation? What kind of lawsuit they’d be looking at?

    It’s absolutely political correctness run amok.

    Hell, I think they should bar anybody who’s been in prison in the last 10 or so years from giving blood too. Lots of AIDS/Hepatitis being transmitted there. You can’t be too safe.

  13. joe know Says:

    “We want to understand the additional risks patients might be asked to accept.”

    You mean forced to accept, God forbid you find yourself in need of an emergency procedure.

    Asking patients to accept additional risks just to give a higher risk group of people the chance to donate blood is ridiculous. Pokitical correctness at its worst.

    There is no need to now accept this blood. There apre plenty of donors who are not in these high risk catagories. When there are blood shortages there has never been an shortage of acceptable donors who step up. What next, drug users, prostitutes and porn stars?

  14. jeremiahsteele Says:

    Gays that are HIV negative should be able to donate blood, and if so necessary, segregate that blood into a “gay” catagory, Then the patient, who is dying and can only survive by gay HIV negative blood transfusions, should have the right of choice, if that makes the difference to their immediate survival. Immediate survival at the hypothetical expense of remotely possible long term exposure is better than dying from lack of blood. I agree this is political correctness gone run amok. But since Africa is rampant with 3rd world diseases presumptively diagnosed as AID$ diseases (they don’t test for HIV because they can’t afford to and doctors just label old diseases like diarrhea “AIDS”), then logic also dictates that Africans not be blood donors, either, in addition to gays and drug addicts. HIV hides as much as the science which conclusively proves HIV causes AID$. HIV supposedly has superatural abilities to hide and mutate all this sci fi shit.

  15. jeremiahsteele Says:

    You completely ignore my points, Joe. Isn’t there a shortage of donor blood? How many die because there was no available blood for a transfusion? Shouldn’t patients who need blood have the option to choose? I know you, along with hating whores, also hate human rights.

    Gays may be a higher risk but gays are not a “high risk”. Heroin addicts as donors are a bad idea because they are physically unhealthy and thus hotspots for disease. Yes, a lot of HIV positives are gay but not vice versa.

    There should be other factors taken into account other than sexual orientation, like overall health. Discriminatng against gays like this is like putting all Japanese American citizens in camps during WWII. You’r overreacting because scaring people is how you get money and your power. If you’re worrying about a retrovirus that can hide in a gay man who’s healthy you better stay off the freeways because they are way more dangerous. Also stop partying ever night -that might be the cause of the high antibody test response in the first place. But regardless the patient should have the option, just like porn stars; not doctors and politicians of death pushing infanticide to “save” mothers.

  16. The President Says:

    “HIV can hide for years”

    People actually believe this sort of thing in 2010? A person standing in front of you can hide HIV by lying to you, yes, but the blood sample will tell the truth. After the two week window as the EXPERT said here. Next.

  17. jeremiahsteele Says:

    Unfortunately, yes. We’ve been effectively brainwashed President. Don’t forget about magic bullets and buildings that collapse by blowing up and out into fine powder.

  18. joe know Says:

    Jerry,
    NO NO NO there is not currently a shortage of blood products. And in the past when supplies have run low, Red Cross puts out a public advertising campaign and suitable donors step us and fill the void.

    Jerry, this is not gay discrimination. WOuld you say they are discriminating against IV drug users?

    NOBODY has the RIGHT to donate blood As stated befroe,the recipient of the blood is the main concern, not the donor. NOBODY is harmed by NOT donating blood.

    ANd youkeep using that lame ‘frewways are dangerous argument’>>Of course they are, that is why cars are REQUIRED by law to have safety devices,seat belts, bumpers etc. That is why there are speed limint laws. Do they always save lives, no. But do they prevent millions of injuries every year,,YES. That is why driving is NOT a RIGHT. Driving is a privlage granted to you by the state when you pass the tests that show you are a competent driver. Should I have the choice to drive as fast as I want? SHoudl I have the choice to stop at red lights?

    Speaking of choices, shouuld the doctor who operates on YOU have the choice to wear gloves or not, or wear a mask in the operating room?

    ANd Jerry, those other factors you speak about ARE screened by donor places like Red Cross. Have you ever seen the questionaire you have to fill out to donate.

    ANd to answer your question Jerrry,,,,,,NOBODY in lthe Unites States has died because of a general lack of available blood for transfusions.

    You keep grasping at straws Jerry, its the only thing youre good at.

    P.s. I am part of a government conspiracy to make you look like a fool. And it s working.

  19. jeremiahsteele Says:

    Regarding the freeways argument. Safety laws don’t stop the save the 46,000 people who die every year, do they? There may be more deaths in the absence of certain laws, but your attempts to push condoms is like shutting down certain roads that are more dangerous. I’m surprised you don’t try to outlaw motorcyles since they are far more dangerous to drive than cars or buses. You have no right to push matters if consumers, producers and performers are against it, and if it ruins the industry you’re trying to save! You’re like those cement headed war mongers who say “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”. I’m sure if you had your way you’d also put many Hollywood stunt men out of business because what they do is far riskier than the average acting performance. But you have no right taking jobs away from people in order to protect them. If you do, then go outlaw coalmining!
    Every job has risks. We choose to take those risks when we choose to work. Trying to make us safer still does not make us safe, only unemployed. And besides, where the fuck do you draw the line and what the fuck do you think gives you the right, Mr. Holier than Thou insulter of whores?

  20. jeremiahsteele Says:

    i think that should’ve read “safety laws don’t save 46,000″…

    anyway,
    doing iv drugs is completely different than being gay, we’re not looking at the numbers, but should, in regards to gays who have AIDS using and having used hardcore recreational drugs excessively before they had AIDS… maybe the numbers reveal a correlation between the two groups in regards to drug use, and sexual proclivity being as much of a cause of their illnesses as birds on a telephone wire being the cause of a power failure

    there’s a reason so many gays with AIDS had or had kaposi sarcoma (one of the AIDS diseases)… they always blame it on a virus and not drug use (specifically; amyl nitrate, or maybe they call it ‘anal nitrate’)! what a joke!

  21. joe know Says:

    “EVeryjob has its risks”

    Absolutely true Jerry. And just like EVERY other industry that has inherent risks, it is the responsibility of the EMPLOYER to mitigate those risks and take financial resposnisbility when those forseeable risks actually cuase an injury.

    Why should porn employers be any different from any other industry when it comes to dealing with the legal resposibilities for the forseeable risks that they hire people to take?

    I have NEVER advocated the ‘outlawing’ of anything. What I do acvocate is for employers to live up to their legal resposibilities.

    P.s. That waiver that producers have perfromers sign that say the perfromer will not hold the produseer liable for catching an std in NOT a valid contract, And the Supreme Court of the State of California has already ruled on that.

  22. jeremiahsteele Says:

    Ok, so if any performer has caught ghon/chlym, the employer they worked for when they caught it should’ve paid for the subsequent testing and treatment, right? Also, is it for sure certain which employer/job something is caught on?

    Why don’t you lay out all the rules you expect be followed by performers and employers so that we are all clear, here?

    We might us well continue these conversations so that we’re all best ready at the OSHA meeting.

    If I hypothetically can’t a real job because of my porno past (“Gee, they’re not very impressed by my ‘job skills’ and history resume”), or if I become estranged from friends, girlfriends and family for what I’ve done is this an “injury” which I can seek compensation from the companies I’ve worked for?

    We should never stop questioning. And btw, I’m not afraid to say something stupid at times if it leads to us learning something.

  23. joe know Says:

    “Why dont you lay out all the rules”

    OK,,,OSHA regulation 5193. THis regulations covers “ALL Workplaces”

    Nothing in this regulation says “escept the porn industry.

    Several other industries have applied for and been granted ‘variances’ to 5193. If porn companies feel that these regulations are a hinderance to their buisness then they can take the legal steps to be granted a variance. VIVID did apply for a variance, but withdrew theri application when they were told that they would be reaquired to pay for the testing and treatment in exchange for not using reasonable measures to prevent exposure.

    Regarding whose set it was casught on. SIMPLE solution….The companies follow the law and test exposed employees in the time frame that is set in the regulations. If one of those tests comes back positive, it may very well be that that i ndividual was positive BEFORE they worked for that company. But it shows that the positive person DID INDEED expose the other people on the set that day.

    Simple question Jerry,,,Why should the porn industry be exempt from following the laws that every other industry is required to follow where employees are knowingly and intentionally exposed to potentially dangerous and infectious material.

    If you work in constrution, and are exposed to asbestos, should the construcion company be able to say, “You kknew the risks when you took the job, so we are not responsible” Should that construcion company let workier decide if they want to wear protective masks.

    FACT…Porn employers know the risks of the jobs they hire performers to do.(the fact that most of them ‘require’ test prevuious to hiring them establishes this fact)_ IF YOU hire someone to take a risk, you are liable when that forseeable risk causes an injury or illness.

  24. joe know Says:

    Jerry,
    WHat, if anything, do porn companies do regarding health and safety of perfromers in their workplaces? I say they do NOTHING. WHat about you?

    HINT(AIM is a voluntary program paid for by perfromers,not porn companies, it has NOTHING to do with what the employers do<

  25. jeremiahsteele Says:

    In an ideal world, Joe, a lot of things which are would not be, and a lot of things which should be, which aren’t, would be. But what would be if you push for what should be would likely cause more problems than it would solve, and neither is that something which should be…

    I’m still confused how you’d identify the source of someone’s ghonorrhea infection. And how many would have to be tested that worked with that person?

    What do porn companies do regarding health and safety of performers? Nothing that I know of. You happy? As soon as porn companies hire me as they’re spokesperson perhaps I’ll say otherwise.

    I’m still waiting for companies to start paying me residuals on all those pay per view airings. However, I’m not holding my breathe. Imagine if I actually got more money for a bigger money shot? What if I’m in a top selling movie. Yo, n***, cough me up some cash! Nope, not gonna happen.

  26. jeremiahsteele Says:

    is anything posted which says “n******” put on automatic moderation approval status, Cindi? that’s ridiculous!
    NL- nope anything with racial slurs in it automatically gets DELETED.

  27. jeremiahsteele Says:

    for the record, it was spelled with an ‘a’ at the end, i guess based on this logic most blacks are racists against themselves

  28. Larry Horse Says:

    So how do the blood donor rules apply to the Trannyfucker and Seth Dickens, who are gay for pay…or so they say, so they could claim straightness.

  29. joe know Says:

    Jerry,
    The law does not require residual payments.

    The source of the positive gonnoreah on the set is NOT what it important….It is the fact that the gonnoreah positve perfromer exposed the other performers that is important. What about that dont you get? You can continue to try to nit pick every single little detail,and look for every excuse possible to absolve the EMPLOYERS from their legal duties, but the law requires only a ‘reasonable likelihood” that the exposure happend in the workplace,,,As wasw confirmed they the Supreme Court of the STate fo Califonia in the Brook Ashley case.

    Anohter example Jerry,,,,,A data enty employee works on their keyboard for eight hours a day. He edevelops carpal tunnel syndrome. But the employer tries to say that the worker also uses a keyboard at home on their personal computer, so how do we know that the ‘work’ is responsible for the injury. THE EIMPLOYER LOSES. The reasonable likelihood that the injury could be directly related to the workplace means the employer pays.

    A porn perfromer)A) performs unprotected sex for an employer. Then, after their job is done, one of the people who the performer worked with(B) tests postive. SUbsequent test show (A) is also positive. It is very reaonable to assume that the injury(illness) occured in the workplace. THE EMPLOYER LOSES.

    And there is legal precendent supporting this. Just ask TTBOY, and do your research on the Brooke Ashley case. THe case law on these issues has been settled, and all of the arguments you present here have been fulley vetted and found to be without merit. Jerry, if you knew what i know about this you would quit while you were only a few miles behind.

    Here’s a real interesting point about the booke Ashley case Jerry……..In all of the court preceedings, Brookes lawyeres NEVER even provided any evidence of any kind that anybody on that set that day was HIV positive. No tests, no testimony, absolutely NOTHING. And the court(Supreme Court of the State of California) still ruled that there was a reasonable likelihood that she got infected in that workplace.

    Jerry, you calim to do all this research on these subjects you talk about. Do a little research on this topic, and get the FACTS for yourself. Your wishful thinking that the porn industtry will continue to get away with violating these laws is just that, wishful thinking. Your opinions on this matter have no basis in fact.

  30. jeremiahsteele Says:

    What’s the problem with ghonorrhea? Most people in the biz have probably had it, they take antibiotics, then go back to work. Who has it killed yet? Just asking…

    Where’s the AIDS epidemic killing millions of people? Where’s the AIDS epidemic in porn? How many have died, and assuming it’s of AIDS, are you sure it’s not from drug use?

    So you propose at least mandetory post + testings and treatment paid for by the company believed to be where the + person caught something from. You accept this in place of mandetory condom legislation? Do you think companies will travel whereever they need to in order to save money by avoiding additional costs?

  31. joe know Says:

    ‘Whats the problem with gonnoreah/”
    Perhaps the most ignorant question ever asked by a working porn perfromer. How can someone in this industry be so ignorant.

    http://www.medical-look.com/Std/Gonorrhea.html

    Infertility in both genders, and pelvic inflamatory disease in women(a leading cause of infertility)

    Bleeding rectums, and throats.

    Jerry, why does the industry only do a urine test. I am sure you knwo(lol) that the urine ts=est does NOTHING to detect any std in the throat or anus. And I;m sure you knwo(lol) that gonn and chlam can remain unsymptomatic in the tha anus. Long term infections resulting in a myriad of consequences, anal cancer being one of them. Why do you think AIM dosnt regularly do anal swabs on the females in the industy you dipshit….Becuase the truth would scare the hell out of a whole lot of female perfromers.

    That AIM urine test, accoding to AIM’s own doctor detects 580 positives per 10,000 tests. And those 10000 tests are done on about 1200 individuals. Thats 5.8% this month, 5.8% next month etc, etc. And that doesnt even coutn anal and throat infections.

    Jerry, will companies go elsewhere? I dont know Jerry, where will they go. Do you think any other city is going to let this industry move in and continue with this overwheliming percentage of positve std’s. I dont.

    ANd YES, I would accept this in place of mandatory condoms becuase I am a realist. I know that porn isnt going away.

    Now answer me this,,,,,Why doesnt the industry do anal and throat testing on a regular basis? Considering that anal and oral sex are a staple of the industry dont you think it would be a good idea to check for oral and anal infections.

    ALl of this oral and anal sex, and the industry does not even test for oral and anal std;s////If that isnt a a fucking joke, perpetrated on an uninformed workforce then I dont know what is. And then you got guys like Jerry who dont even have a clue as to the long term effects of MULTIPLE exposures to these diseases.

    Here’s an easy one for you Jerry….Do you think the industry would have a different policy regarding HPV if it caused testicular cancer ind=stead of cervical cancer? (Another std that the industry pretends doesnt exist, because if they tested for it and kept records like the others the numbers would be too frightening.

    AIM doesnt do routine HPV, or anal and oral gonn/chlam tests becuase the numbers would prove the extent of the infection throughout the industry. And thats the LAST thing the industry wants anyone to have,,the real facts about the stds in the industry.

  32. joe know Says:

    And i do agree with your analysis that companies would do ANYTHING to avoid paying for any of the health related issues in their industry. As you can easily see by the comments of the porn idustry itself, the “cost” of health and safety measures far outweighs any benefit to perfromers to have a healthier workplace. THe industry’s threat to move elswhere if they have to pay ANY of the health related s=costs is quite telling in and of itself. The ONLY argument being made at any of these hearings by the industry is…”We will leave California and take jobs and tax money away.” THey never address the health issue, and thats because they have NOTHING to talk about. But if you had been at the last hearing Jerry, you would have heard a board member say directly to Paul Cambria when he made this argument….exact quote…”That is not our problem and will have no impact on the decision of this board.”

    ANd those thousands of reported postive stds by AIM in the last severla years are just the tip of the iceberg, considering they dont even test regualry for SO MANY diseses, and,accoding to you, perfromers are also going elswhere to get tested and treated.(Your statement regarding these altenate testing facilities is in direct contrast with statements by AIM BOD president Ira Levine)

    Simple question Jerry,
    IS Ira Levine lying when he says “the industry has a 98% compliance rate with the AIM program?” I say Yes,,,how abour you?

  33. joe know Says:

    Jerry, just a little something more for you to think about.

    Cockroaches being used in a mainstream movie have more legal protection than porn perfromers. How does if feel to work in an industry that treats yuo as something less than a cockroach?

  34. jeremiahsteele Says:

    Don’t call me dipshit, you cunt. Anyways, you didn’t answer the second part of my statement/question which included treatment for ghonorrhea. Of course if it goes untreated there can be problems. I agree ghon can’t be tested in throat or anus by urine. I went to Dr. Rigg, not because I had anything, which I didn’t, but because there were having free throat g/c cultures. It also gave me the opportunity to discuss the OSHA issue.

    Btw, why isn’t OSHA outlawing coalmining?

    Chicken pox is a form of HPV, and it goes away, right? There’s a shame and hostility related to genital diseases, although the immune system usually eradicates them. This is a work issue, but you also have to look at the free choice element here, just as you would in private sexual affairs. Like I said, safer dosen’t equal safe, no matter what you do. I don’t think if HPV caused dick or ball cancer there’d be any change of policy. Remember we guys are just second class citizens compared to women, anyways, generally speaking.

    I have no idea what the compliance rate with AIM might be.

  35. jeremiahsteele Says:

    last comment is under mod approval mode for what reason I do not know.

    let me add to what you’ll eventually read that I don’t know anything about cockroach’s rights. I do think some cheap producers treat us like cockroaches. You also treat me like a cockroach. With that having been said, this cock is gonna smoke a roach…

  36. Larry Horse Says:

    Isnt the clap now close to being anti-biotic resistant? One of the interesting things will be ten to twenty years down the road to see how many of these performers now get Hep C. The results will be cloudy cause performers have two major sources to consider, the sex act and the rampant tattooing. Maybe AIM can get performers to donate blood after they confirm its “clean”, use the pint to cover their additional expenses. Even label the blood by performer…but they cant, HIPAA or can they?

  37. President4Life Says:

    If you’re gonna change the gay law, then you have to change the tattoo law, the IV drug law, and all the other rules that keep you from giving blood. It’s the only thing you can be arguing. Either EVERYBODY can give blood regardless of their risk factors, or nobody can based on said risk factors. So, are you making an argument for letting all of the other “high-risk” groups donate blood without any restriction, or just gay men?

    @jeremiahsteele Says:

    for the record, it was spelled with an ‘a’ at the end, i guess based on this logic most blacks are racists against themselves

    –Bullshit reasoning. People can call their own people whatever they want. It’s when somebody else calls them that, that’s becomes offensive.

  38. joe know Says:

    Why isnt OSHA outlawing coalmining?”

    Another ignorant comparison.
    Coal mining has inherent dangers just like many occupations, construction, crab fishing,and porn perfroming. But all of these other industries have safety measures to mitigate those dangers, and the employers also offer remedies when those forseeable injuries occur. As you well know Jerry, porn offers no protection to mitigate the dangers, and they offer no remedies when injuries occur.Just like driving is dangerous.(your other favorite moronic comparison) That is why there are speed limit laws, seat belt laws etc. When you break the rules on the road you have to take responsibility It isnt that diffucult to understand Jerry.

    Why should the porn industry be exempt from taking respositbility for the injuries and disease that certainly do occur in their workplaces? Other indusries have to take reaposibility for their workplace injuries, why not porn? In all the years of discussing this issue NOBODY has ever come up with an even remotely good asnwer to this question. Want to give it try Jerry?

    Larrry, sex workers are banned from donating blood.

    And regarding HPV. There are many strains of HPV and yes, the bodies natural immune system usually takes care of it. But in porn you have MULTIPLE exposures from MULTIPE sources. Most ‘civilians” dont have anywhere even close to the number of exosures that porn workers do. From a medical satandpoint, compairing the two is ridiculous.

    Get it though your thick skull Jerry, it is the MULTIPLE exposures to std’ that sets the porn and prostitution industries apart from “regular” people.

    But using Jerry logic, I would be exposed multiple times becuase I’m a whore too……Are you beginning to see where your logic fails miserably Jerry. THats why youre a whore, and Im not.

    Jerry, the cock smoking a roach was a good one. But I am sure you do know that even little animals used in maisnstream movies have more protection than porn perormers do. I like the way you dind of side stepped the issue. But then again, the truth hurts, doesnt it?

  39. jeremiahsteele Says:

    stay tuned while comment awaits moderator approval. i should write an article about why are certain words so ban worthy, regardless of context, reference, 1st person, 3rd person or who is saying them but i can say cunt, shit, fuck, dingleberry, asshole, dyke, fag, etc… and NO PROBLEM!

  40. jeremiahsteele Says:

    great cindi, i see you removed my comment, that’s ridiculous, you could’ve edited if you felt you needed to

    anyway i basically said to prez i resent the notion that i’m some kind of outsider to your people, i should be one of your people, you can not decide what a person necessarily means when they something, it all depends on where you’re coming from, if a bunch of black guys and one white guy are playing basketball and yelling n— give me the ball, and then the white guy, trying to fit in, does the same, does that make the white guy a racist?

    i said some other stuff but forgot at this point…

  41. President4Life Says:

    @jeremiahsteele

    anyway i basically said to prez i resent the notion that i’m some kind of outsider to your people, i should be one of your people, you can not decide what a person necessarily means when they something, it all depends on where you’re coming from, if a bunch of black guys and one white guy are playing basketball and yelling n— give me the ball, and then the white guy, trying to fit in, does the same, does that make the white guy a racist?

    I don’t think it makes you racist, it’s just inappropriate, just like if I see a married couple having an argument, I can’t just but into their business or any family dispute. There are things you can say to your wife, husband, family that other “outsiders” aren’t allowed to say. That’s across the board, not just with the n-word.

  42. jeremiahsteele Says:

    I totally respect how you feel, but I still think a word in and of itself does not necessarily mean disrespect. If whites 100% of time should not say that then blacks should not call themselves that, either. If only blacks can address each other as that, then it is ostracizing whites and makes them feel uncomfortable and alien in such social situations. Of course, I’m not talking about obvious blatant and angry epithets. You should know the difference by tone and relationship, although one can be completely blind and ignorant of that if it’s just coming through words on the internet…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

© 2014 LUKE IS BACK | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Design by Web4. This site is powered by Wordpress