OP/ED by XXXMed, Who Responds to Mark Kernes article and comments
Dr. Riggs name appears directly underneath the title on the first page. Anybody who knows anything about the industry surely would have recognized this. Then on the first page, directly underneath a paragraph that begins with “Adult film production..” you see the name of the clinic West Oaks Urgent Care, right on the first page. Mr. Kernes did you not see Dr. Riggs name right underneath the title? Did that not tell you anything? But I don’t blame James Lee for not knowing this, how could he? But I can blame Mark Kernes, and anybody else in the industry for not seeing this. One would think that someone as intelligent as Mr. Kernes would notice that AIM is not mentioned anywhere in that footnote of page one that describes the study participants. And how could you ever have a discussion about std’s in porn without mentioning AIM. But I can see it now, if the study didn’t mention AIM Mark would complain about that. Just like Mr. Lee complains about what he thought was this study including outsiders and first timers, then in the same paragraph criticizes this report for not using all of the people who tested at the clinic for comparison. But I must give credit to Mr. Kernes for pointing out that the study Mr. Lee referred to was not this one. But then Mr. Kernes describes Mr. Lees press release as ‘fairly accurate.” Fairly accurate, really, when the ENTIRE press release is about the wrong study Mr. Kernes, do you think it is proper for the FSC web page, and the official No On B website to keep this press release posted, or should it be taken down and corrected? How does that even come close to accurate?
Another thing Mr. Kernes didn’t comment about was the fact that all of these performers were going to an outside industry clinic with all of these stds. Perhaps the County stats are flawed, since they are only based on AIM Healthcare’s results, and not all of the other places where performers also get tested, you know Mark, go somewhere else to get tested in order to keep right on working with your clean AIM test. Several years ago a performer named Layla Jade wrote an article about this exact issue for a feature called AVN Insider, but for some reason I cannot find that article in the AVN archives. Perhaps Mr. Kernes, you can find that article and read it, or perhaps post it here. It was written by a performer, for performers, and was printed on AVN.com. You could do the performers a great service and let them see this very well written article about this very subject, written by one of their own.
But the most disturbing statement Mr.Kernes makes is “ONLY 28% of the subjects tested positive for ANY disease.” Mr. Kernes, are you trying to insinuate that 28% is a LOW number, you have got to be kidding. And the study only tested for gonorrhea and Chlamydia, it should have included HPV, herpes, and Hep C. When Mr. Kerns capitalizes the word ANY, he knows full well that no other diseases were part of the study, and one can only imagine what the results would have been if they included HPV, Hep C and herpes. Maybe Mr. Kernes can persuade the APHSS clinics to publish their own results, and do their own study that includes ANY of these other diseases.(or perhaps hell will freeze over first) And among that 28% that tested positive there were 30 females, 24 of whom tested positive in more that one anatomical region, with 18 of them testing positive in all three, throat, rectum and vagina. Had all of these people been tested using the current industry protocol, only 19 out of the 30 would have been identified, and the other 11 would have been give an “Available for work” status on the APHSS database, and gone another 30 days, going to work everyday with either oral or anal stds, but somehow magically on a porn set std’s are never transmitted, right Mark? Actually, out of the 30 positive individual females, there were 72 individual infections if you count each anatomical site separately. Mr.Kernes, should I have written there were ONLY 72 individual infections among the 30 positive female performers?
And regarding one of the most ridiculous posts about the stds for those who had not been in an adult movie for over 30 days., so where did they get infected? As the study clearly points out, the vast majority of these infected people were asymptomatic, and these diseases can fester for long periods of time, much longer than thirty days. And Mr. Kernes goes on to talk about being able to prove if any of these infections happened on set. It is indeed very possible that some of them didn’t, and what did that person do after getting infected off set, that person went right to work the following days and exposed every person he/she worked with, but of course there is some kind of magic barrier on a porn set and nobody gets infected. Of course, Mr. Kernes has no proof that it happened off set, in the same manner that he says there is no proof that it happened on set. And the study does show that 38 performers said they never use condoms off set, 122 said sometimes, and ONLY 8 said always. Thirty-eight said they never used condoms off set, so what does that tell you abut the increased risk once they jump back into the porn pool.
So here’s another question Mark. The LA Times editorial says, “Few, if any, performers “date” outside the industry.” SO if this is true, then how do all these std’s come from outside the industry? Or will the number one adult industry reporter give in and say that the LA Times is wrong about this? Which is it, do these std’s come from outside the industry from these FEW, if any, performers who ‘date'(i.e. fuck) outside the industry.(LOL) And maybe Mr. Kernes can write an article about the very long standing relationship between West Coast Urgent Care and the adult industry, wouldn’t that be interesting? Mr. Kernes attacks West Oaks in his current article, making a reference to Lara Rox’s dissatisfaction with them, but I don’t know of any other article on AVN over the past 10+ years that West Oaks have been serving the industry population, but now, after ten years, they get attacked.(LOL) ” IF West Oaks is so bad for the industry Mark, why hasn’t anything been done about in over 10+ years?
These diseases are in the industry talent pool right now. Today there are performers who are infected, and wont be treated until they get tested., and they will expose everyone they have contact with. Now just use an ounce of common sense, and then tell us all that performers are not getting infected on set. And if they only use the current industry protocol, a number of them wont be detected, and they will work for another month while infected, have multiple unprotected encounters, but of course, somehow, they wont infect any of their scene partners.
Mr. Kernes, being the reporter you are, perhaps you could get a few of these questions answered. The industry loves to say we are the most tested workforce, and everyone gets tested every 28 days, so, how many performers, on average, test positive every 28 days?(and take note, there is no routine rectal or throat tests done). Don’t you think the industry would put these numbers out their if they could refute these claims, time for the old put up or shut up. The industry APHSS clinics know EXACTLY how may performers test positive every month, why not let the performers know exactly what they are dealing with, don’t they have the right to know, so they can make an informed choice? The statement, we are the most tested seems pretty useless unless you give us the results of those tests. And how many performers are listed as available for work on the APHSS database. And now for the big one Mr. Kernes, what is the APHSS protocol regarding Hep C, and will APHSS list as available for work someone who has Hep C? Mark, did you ever wonder why there is no Hep C screening, not even for first timers wanting to get into the industry? (or would we rather just continue to not talk about it)
Mr.Kernes, do the performers have the right to know the true stats of industry infections in order to make an INFORMED CHOICE? Why won’t the industry clinics ever make any statements about the number of performers who test positive? Don’t the performers deserve to know? Wouldn’t it make sense to show these numbers if they prove how good the testing system works, or is it that the industry testing system actually shows how the current industry protocols are NOT working. The answer is in the numbers, lets see them.(or again, will hell freeze over first) But you really cant blame the industry for not making this public, because we all pretty much know what it would show, don’t we Mark? One would think than number one industry reporter would look into this, given the current political situation. If the industry could use their own testing to fight this battle they would, the fact that they aren’t speaks volumes.
Now for a prediction, the industry will continue to attack this report, but will institute oral and anal testing, but claim that this study had nothing to do with that decision.
Another quick question for Mark, when you write articles for AVN that are about the FSC, shouldn’t you, as a journalist, make some kind of notation that you are an active member of the organization that you are writing about? Shouldn’t the editors of AVN demand this, from a journalistic integrity standpoint? As the link below says, “Distinguish between advocacy and reporting: analysis and commentary should be labeled” “Remain free of association and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility” “Disclose unavoidable conflicts”(like being a member of the FSC) and “Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.”