Posted on 04/11/2005 2:32:32 AM PDT by David Lane
New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and effectiveness of condoms
(Extract from one of the many articles in the gay and liberal press attacking the new semi honest position on useless condoms)
The wording of information about condoms on the site is also potentially misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes usually only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure.
The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only “moderate” protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, “less” protection against Chlamidya, herpes and human papilloma virus, and that the ability of condoms to protect against syphilis “has not been well studied.” Although these claims are backed by reference to studies looking at the effectiveness of condoms, they do not acknowledge that the studies were, almost exclusively, conducted in populations with a high prevalence, or risk of sexually transmitted infections.
____
The rest of the article (attacking the new semi honest official statements on condoms) is a pathetic attempt to defend condoms citing the one and only study (if you can call it that) conducted over twelve years ago that claimed that condoms reduced 'AIDS' in the 132 couples studied. As usual the 'conclusions' section of that report which said 'in real world use condoms failed up to 32% of the time' was ignored.
This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies almost without exception.
This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies almost without exception.
LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT CONDOMS AT: -
http://groups.msn.com/LIDS-Latexallergiesandthedangersofcondoms
How condoms cause cancers, birth defects, impotence, Preeclampsia and fatal Type IV reactions plus Type I and type II reactions.
http://groups.msn.com/Condomfactsandfiction
Over two hundred studies and articles ALL showing that condoms are NO protection
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Both extremes are wrong. Condoms are indeed better than "bare backing" but are by no means a cure-all.
I must beg to disagree:-
Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves (published in Rubber World, June, 1993).
Roland said that what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among good scientists who have no political agenda."
Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size (a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.
The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I'll mention the Canadian test below). Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."
Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns."
And it's not as if governments don't know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89 condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this] study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public health and welfare." The federal government's standard tests, he adds, "cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus." Such tests are "blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet this quantity of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as many as 100,000 HIV particles."
As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, "The HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a tennis net."
It's the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different manufacturers revealed "pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns deep." More relevant to HIV transmission, "5 micron-wide channels, penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves." He said the presence of such defects in latex "is well established."
For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an "improved" 28% rate.
___________
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
3
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 routexxv.
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).
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
TEXAS UNIVERSITY ON CONDOM TESTING
Models of STD transmission
Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.
Even if the models used to test condoms are reasonable indicators of whether a condom will break during sex, and thus whether they will function adequately in preventing sperm from reaching the female's reproductive system, but they may be rather poor indicators of whether a microscopic pathogen can pass from one partner to the other.
For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses and even of the bacterium Chylamidia.
Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded by a condom.
That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms as barriers to infectious disease.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I agree but the trouble is condoms are FAR worse than is justified by the minimal protection they may afford: -
Are condoms a greater health risk than the std's they don't really protect against?
It is politically correct to advocate condoms but every day the evidence increases that they do little to protect and may pose a very serious health risk. It is hard for the CDC and FDA to examine these risks as they have been so vocal in promoting condoms but could their silence lead to dire consequences. I for one having done exaustive research strongly feel so.
"...... new concerns are arising regarding allergic or other toxic reactions to various components of latex condoms such as vulcanization accelerators, latex proteins, spermicides and finishing powders."
"* Studies are needed to evaluate the best lubricants to use in the manufacture of condoms. Evidence suggests that the right quantity, type and placement of lubricant is important for condom functionality, acceptability and safety.
In addition, the added value and risk presented by spermicidal lubricants and by dry finishing powders (e.g. talc or cornstarch) should be critically examined."
"Since the late 1980s the reported incidence
of allergy to natural rubber latex has increased dramatically, as much as 12 -fold."
"Latex allergy is incurable, although the symptoms, such as itching, soreness, painful blistering, runny noses, swollen eyes, asthma symptoms and anaphylaxis can be ameliorated.
Everyone who has contact wi th natural rubber latex is potentially at risk from sensitisation.
Both patients and health care workers can be at risk from allergic reactions to natural rubber latex. Over the past decade, allergic reactions to natural
rubber latex have become a major public health concern."
" Once a person has developed latex allergy, however mild, they are “sensitised” to latex and are at risk from severe allergic reactions."
"Delayed cell-mediated reactions are the most common form of hypersensitivity reaction to natural rubber latex. These reactions are to individual chemical residues from the production process such as accelerants used in the vulcanisation process which is required to strengthen the product.
The residual chemicals may bloo on the surface of the products and can be absorbed through the skin upon contact."
"Potent Carcinogen found in Most Condoms
Recent study has discovered the presence of a very potent carcinogen in most condoms. Small amounts of this chemical are released whenever condoms are used.
Nobody knows whether this is serious yet however it is not likely to be healthy to expose the reproductive organs to cancer-causing substances on a regular basis.
This is a potentially serious issue for much of the world's population that cannot afford or access other forms of birth control. I hope further studies will follow on this soon. Could this be related to the rise in cancer in women, and men as well? "
"Talc...(on condoms)...may result in fallopian tube fibrosis with resultant infertility. Question raised by Doctors Kasper and Chandler in Journal of the American Medical Association. (JAMA) 3/15/95
-from Nutrition Health Review, Summer 1995 n73p8(1)"
"A possible tie between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, long suspected because of talc's chemical similarity to asbestos, was strongly supported last week when a study found a higher risk of the cancer among women who used feminine deodorant sprays. The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that women who used talcum powder in the genital area had an increased ovarian cancer risk of 60% and women who used feminine deodorant sprays had a 90% increased risk."
-from The University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter, April 1993 v9n7p1
"Benzene. In addition to the effect on fertility, some researchers believe overexposure to chemicals may also contribute to testicular cancers. In fact, a 2000 study concluded that there was a link between sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer.
Among the study participants, men in couples with fertility problems were more likely to develop testicular cancer. In addition, low semen concentration, poor sperm motility, and abnormal sperm morphology were all associated with increased risk for testicular cancer."
"a recent Lancet study (2002;360:971-977) found frequent use may in fact increase the risk of HIV transmission.
The head of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, Don Baxter, said up to 10 percent of condoms sold in Australia include nonoxynol-9 as a lubricant. "Not a high percentage of condoms use nonoxynol-9, it's usually a particular brand, but they are fairly widely available," he said. Baxter advised all gay men to avoid using condoms with nonoxynol-9 and said AFAO would call for the product to be withdrawn from pharmacy shelves. "
"The allergens that cause reactions in individuals with spina bifida are particle bound proteins that are less able to be dissolved in water than some of the other latex proteins"
* Talc - This is found in baby powders, face powders, body powders as well as some contraceptives such as condoms. Talc is a known carcinogen and is a major cause of ovarian cancer when used in the genital area. It can be harmful if inhaled as it can lodge in the lungs, causing respiratory disorders."
"LOS ANGELES (Reuters Health) May 09 - Women who are not exposed to a partner's sperm prior to pregnancy because the couple used condoms may be at increased risk for developing preeclampsia, a new study presented here concludes. "
Condoms contain compounds known to cause cancer and serious birth defects in substantial quantities
SOURCES. Condom Industry web site, medical publications and Beacon Pharmaceuticals.
ALSO
2004.06.02/15:14
Condoms pose deadly threat
German scientists came to the conclusion that the majority of condoms contain carcinogens causing cancer.
According to the specialists of the Institute of Chemical Research in Shtutgart, Germany, 29 out of the 32 kinds of the researched condoms contain N-Nitrosamine carcinogen.
"N-Nitrosamine is one of the most poisonous carcinogens|, said the research author. ?Condom producers should be pressed to deal with this issue|.
Scientists suspect that this carcinogen is contained in the additional substances condoms are made of. After the rubber contacts person-s skin, the dangerous substance can penetrate into the person-s organism.
Korrespondent.net
I'd phrase it differently. Condoms offer full protection against pregnancy and most sexual diseases if used correctly (obviously HPV and other diseases spread by skin contact don't fall into that). There has never been a confirmed case of anyone contracting an STD or becoming pregnant after using a condom correctly. The problem is that many people don't, and as a result, condoms break or fall off. So its in light of that -- that we say that condoms are only partially effective, because they allow for human error.
Dear Gold,
To say there has never been a confirmed case of anyone contracting an STD or becoming pregnant after using a condom correctly is, with due respect, total nonsense.
I have read almost every condom study and NOTHING could be further from the truth.
Even the CDC admits that condoms have a high failure rate. Shear failure alone is i the 3% range.
Jones and Forrest found that condoms fail about 38% of the time even when use correctly.
In addittion the pores in condoms are 700 times LARGER than a virus like Herpes. NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.