egafd.com

hi david

Im out of the hardcore side of the industry and i have been for about 6 months and have no plans ever to go back to doing it even more so after this.The only time i will be going elsewhere to shoot is for myself for my new site which is mostly going to be solo and soft g/g and no b/g

love
denise davies

Do you think you are or were a good performer?

well to be honest my heart was never in hardcore and i never even thought about doing it till john graham persuaded me to do it but decided i am a model not a ponstar so no i dont think i was all that good at it posng and looking pretty for the camera is what i do best

Thanks for that. I had seen some scenes you were in and I felt your scenes showed you as inhibited (if that is the right word). You looked great but some sort of inner lust didn't express itself to the camera.

i think you into porn or your not and im not and this recent scare has put me of for life and it should put other girls of to i value my health and have the ability to make money doing other stuff.im starting a new site with cool piranah which should be up and running in a few weeks which will have loads of cool recent solo sets and g/g sets and will show me at my best and i have other ventures in the pipeline to in the future.

Hi,

There have been a number of posts, most notably from one particular contributor to the BGAFD, that have cast negativity with regard to Sharon Mitchell's agenda, either directly or through AIM.

From US industry gatherings, it is clear that there is an unanimous acknowledgement that this event would have never have been contained so effectively if it had not been for AIM.

It is because virtually all LA studios had committed/supported to AIM as being the only accepted STD testing clinic that it was possible to compile 1st and 2nd generation performer lists within just 5 hours (it would have been faster if the media had not locked up all of AIM's landlines).
Whilst many LA producers/directors, when talking about Sharon Mitchell, commonly use terms such as "pain in the butt", "in your face", "interfering", "scaremongerer", "manipulative", "annoying preacher", "empire building", right now, all agree that AIM would not have been where it is today without such an effective and committed figurehead.


AIM is about detection and containement and it delivered on both. But with Sharon Mitchell at the helm, 5 hours was not good enough and she is already lobbying for a change of procedure to bring this down to less than an hour. And if anybody can convince the industry to accept the protocols to make this happen, it will be Sharon.
To have such an influence and to receive such a level of co-operation did not arise from thin air but from respect at her dedication for constantly improving the well-being of talent in the LA porn industry (and beyond...)


My greatest hope is that the emerging BIAHA will be fortunate enough to include within it's ranks someone like Sharon. Speaking from the heart, the UK porn industry desperately needs BIAHA and I believe it should adopt as much of the AIM policies (present and future) as possible.

And if you should consider my haste for the creation of the BIAHA as over-zealous, consider this:
If the US incident had occured in the UK instead, the 6 month window which comes from the currently accepted standard of an Elisa test every three months would most certainly, even when disregarding the difference in talent numbers between the US and UK, create an outbreak far beyond 3 performers.


So quit knocking the person that has almost single-handedly suceeded in creating a entity that has been able to minimise the likelyhood of porn performers contracting, what is currently, an incurable disease.


And if after all I have just said, posts continue to appear which that throw crap at Sharon then I will be forced to accept that the world will always remain populated with arseholes who are unable to accept that there really are people in the world that do things just because they care.


And I will end with a comment that will, without doubt, be considered as nothing less that contentious:
"Given the choice, even at this moment, I would rather perform with LA talent rather than UK talent.
Why? Because, as a regular visitor to the Vegas craps tables, I have come to learn that when you know the odds, regardless of how bad they may be, at least they offer you the opportunity to you to make a judgement call and that is, always, far more preferable than taking a blind throw of the dice."


Yours, driven by emotion,


Joanna Jet
xxx

I don't know enough about Sharon Mitchell to pass any sort of comment other than to say that I am in complete agreement - AIM is the reason the infection has been contained. Whatever the plusses and negatives of the business practices, allegations of anti-competitiveness etc, etc - the fact is that AIM worked...

The picture you paint of the UK says it all... a 6 month window makes containment absolutely totally and utterly impossible.

AIM's database has been key to containment. True - other clinics COULD have been linked to that database (and I hope BAIHA will make for that competitive provision) - but you can argue that a single organisations clinics have assisted in the speed of containment.

No blsme for the current predicament can be laid at the door of AIM. AIM HAS WORKED.

As I said in a previous thread (the one I believe was deleted) - NO testing regime can PREVENT an infection, that is not what a testing regime is for. Testing can only DETECT an infection. And once detected - it is for an organisation like AIM to isolate and contain further infection.

I'm not privy to the inside information that someone of your status has... I can only say it as I see it...

Is it not true that AIM has oprdered a complete shutdown until early June? If that's the case then I think publication of first, second, third, fourth, fifth (and so on) generation lists is irrelevant - as far as AIM are concerned NOBODY should be working ANYWAY...

With regard to Mark Wallice - the 5 girls infected - were they infected AFTER his infection had been detected - or in the interim period between infection and detection - because, again, if the latter is the case - AIM HAS STILL WORKED!

Testing is NOT going to prevent infections - only detect, isolate and contain them... The risk of passing infections will always exist - its like riding a motorbike wearing a crash helmet (well, it's not really!) - you might still die from a head injury because of some other idiot on the road, although your chances of not doing are slightly better... the same applies to the testing regime - you might still get something because some performer somewhere in the chain has compromised their status, but your chances are slightly better than if there was no testing...