Replies

EVERY STUDY SHOWS CONDOMS TO BE NO PROTECTION

FAILURES OF THE MEMBRANE OF THE CONDOM
1) Permeability of the latex membrane for microparticles, STD agents and HIV

In 1977 D.Barlow v advanced the hypothesis of the existence of some pores in the latex membrane of a condom in order to explain why this did not appear to protect against non-gonococcal urethrites and genital infections with Condylomata acuminata.

This hypothesis has been revived in order to account for HIV infections acquired during
sexual intercourse "protected" by use of a condomvi.
S.G.Arnold et al. (1988) vii have examined latex gloves from four manufacturers using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray analysis.

They found that all of the gloves had pits 3-15µm wide and up to 30µm deep on both interior and exterior surfaces. Irregular particles (30-50µm) containing silicon and magnesium were embedded in the latex deeply enough to cause pits themselves.
________

REF: -

Freeze-fractured
1 Pontifical Council for the Family, Rome. Current adress: 18 via della Traspontina, Roma, 00193, Italy.
2 English translation by D.E.Parry from the revised original article « Le "sexe sûr" et le préservatif face au défi du Sida», Medicina e Morale, n°4, 1997, pp.689-726.

2 sections of all gloves showed cavities throughout the matrix and tortuous channels
(5µm) penetrating the entire thickness of the glove.
_________

Such irregularities in latex membrane surface and structure do not seem to be encountered in condoms, at least when they are new, and have not been exposed to heat, oxygen, or ozone. However, under scanning electron microscopy, the surface of a latex condom membrane is not uniformly smooth: it appears made of smooth areas separated by puckers and dimples scattered across the specimen (viii). There are hollows and irregular projections on this surface, with irregular, dense inclusions (ix).

Although numerous pores are visible in scanning electron microscopy of natural condoms (x,) no
evidence of breaks, fissures or pores have yet been reported in the few published
transmission electron microscope studies of latex condoms (xi).

Some authorities have concluded that latex membranes of condoms, despite their nonhomogeneous structure and the irregularity of their surface, could be considered free of microscopic pores, of a size down to that of the smaller virus.
However, these results have been put in question.
First, as Rosenzweig et al.(xviii) say it, all the aboved mentioned electron microscopic studies of condoms have been "predominantly anecdotal".

These later authors, in their own study of thirty samples from fifteen non-lubricated Trojan condoms, did find that a large proportion of these samples have visible surface abnormalities, with only 30% of all condoms tested completely free of detectable defects under all magnifications. 50% of the samples revealed a surface abnormality interpreted as either cracking, melting or both.

Second, in vitro studies about the grade of impermeability of condoms membranes to microorganisms, using a condom plunged into a culture medium, are few, and limited to small sample sizes.

Confidence intervals constructed around reported failure rates indicate that "true" permeability rates could be quite high, and
new data suggest that some condom do leak HIV and that leakage is not necessarily
related to whether or not they are made of late (xxix).

Moreover, experience with STDs shows the need for prudence in extrapolating results obtained in vitro to situations in (vivoxx).

Third, optimism about condoms membrane integrity has been shaken after closely controlled condoms, coming from known manufacturers, had shown a permeability to microspheres of greater size than that of HIV (6 condoms out of 69)xxi.

Carey et al.(xxii) observed the passage of polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm diameter (HIV diameter is from 90nm to 130 nm) across 33% of the membranes of the latex condoms which they studied (29 over 89 nonlubricated latex condoms).

More recently, Lytle et al., while criticizing the "exaggerated conditions" of the in vitro, polystyrene microspheres test carried out by Carey et al., found that 2,6% (12 of 470) of the latex condoms did allow some virus penetration, with no difference between lubricated and nonlubricated condoms (xxiii).

It has been said that since HIV in semen is associated with white blood cells (and, may be, also with spermatozoa) and since neither spermatozoa nor white cells can pass through these very small hypothetic "pores" in the latex, then HIV itself cannot
pass. So these "pores", even if they do exist, could not therefore be of such importance.

But this is deceptive. In fact HIV is present in sperm in two forms: associated with white blood cells and as free virus particles (xxiv); And C.J.Miller et al. have demonstrated that cell-free virus preparations are capable of producing HIV infection by the genital route xxv.

Given their size, such free viruses from semen could transit through the smallest defect of the membrane of a condom and reach, in the organism of the sexual partnerxxvi, CD4 in Langerhans, lymphocytes and macrophages cells.

They may also potentiate indirectly the infectivity of HIV-1 in semen, regardless of HIV-1 source (xxvii).