Catholic Doctors Confirm Pope's Statement: Statistics Prove Condoms Ineffective Against HIV

life site news ^ | 05.12.09 | Kathleen Gilbert

[Coleus]

MANILA, Philippines, May 12, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of Catholic medical professionals based in the Philippines has stated that condom promotion has failed to curb the spread of AIDS.  The group said that it agreed with a widely-criticized recent statement by Pope Benedict XVI in which he endorsed a renewed respect for sexuality in facing the AIDS epidemic, rather than condom use. "Condoms are highly dangerous," said Yolly Eileen Gamutam, head of Asia's Catholic Association of Doctors, Nurses and Health Professionals (ACIM-Asia), in an article on the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines website. 

"If we are promoting truthful public information then tell the people that using condoms is dangerous."  Gamutam referenced the HIV crisis in Thailand, where widespread promotion and use of condoms has failed to curb the rise of HIV.  By the end of 2003, Thailand, with a population of 63 million, registered 570,000 HIV-positive adults and children.  Gamutam compared the statistic to the Philippines, where only 9,000 Filipinos were HIV-positive out of a population of 80 million.  500 died of AIDS in the Philippines that year, while 58,000 perished in Thailand.  The data, said Gamutam, showed that "the condom use program in Thailand is not effective." 

"Even if all brothels were required to have supplies of condoms, and if they were available in all supermarkets, bars, restaurants, and other public gathering places still it would not deter the widespread of HIV/AIDS," she said.   She agreed with Pope Benedict XVI that abstinence and conjugal fidelity are the best way to combat the disease.  In past years the Philippines had earned dire forecasts from family planning groups, who said the nation was "courting an AIDS epidemic" for sustaining a policy against condoms.  Despite protests from Roman Catholic leaders, and a continuing low rate of HIV, the Philippines government began promoting condoms in 2008.

ACIM-Asia criticized the lobby group, Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), which it calls "vehemently opposed to the Catholic Church and the pro-life cause," for pushing the Philippine government to further fund contraception.  The lobby is financially supported by members of the European Parliament.  199 members of the European Parliament last week had voted in favor of a resolution - voted down by 253 others - to condemn Pope Benedict XVI's answer to a question regarding the AIDS problem.  The pontiff in March said that the solution to the AIDS crisis mainly required "a humanization of sexuality" and renewed care for the suffering.

"If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem," he said.   Although Benedict's statement continues to draw fury from liberal groups around the world, some AIDS experts, including the head of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard University, admit that evidence supports the pope's position.  "The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope's comments," Harvard's Dr. Edward Green told National Review Online in March. (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031906.html)

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Spanish Congress May Condemn Pope's Remarks Denouncing Condom Use
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050611.html

International Organizations Gather 40,000 Signatures So Far in Support of Pope's Statements on Condoms
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041602.html

Prominent Ugandan AIDS Activist Thanks Pope for Opposition to Condoms
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032003.html

Harvard AIDS Expert Says Pope is Correct on Condom Distribution Making AIDS Worse
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031906.html

[Coleus]

.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Non-Catholic doctors know this too...

[chase19]

No time to read but will bookmark for later. Thanks Coleus.

[killjoy]

"If we are promoting truthful public information then tell the people that using condoms is dangerous." Gamutam referenced the HIV crisis in Thailand, where widespread promotion and use of condoms has failed to curb the rise of HIV. By the end of 2003, Thailand, with a population of 63 million, registered 570,000 HIV-positive adults and children. Gamutam compared the statistic to the Philippines, where only 9,000 Filipinos were HIV-positive out of a population of 80 million. 500 died of AIDS in the Philippines that year, while 58,000 perished in Thailand. The data, said Gamutam, showed that "the condom use program in Thailand is not effective."

These numbers, and the conclusions drawn, are a complete joke. Thailand has about 10,000 new cases per year which is far from what is presented in this article. A large percentage of these cases are from other risk factors, namely drug use, not from sexual contact. Drawing the conclusion that condom use is ineffective is just dumb.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Now my grandma sells cheap prophylactics.
She punctures the head with a pin.
While grandpa gets rich from abortions.
My god, how the money rolls in.

From Oscar Brand’s “How the money rolls in”.

[Alter Kaker]

This is just silliness.

[matthew fuller]

"Gamutam referenced the HIV crisis in Thailand, where widespread promotion and use of condoms has failed to curb the rise of HIV."

Condom promotion and distribution is totally irrelevant to the contracting of HIV....

[dsc]

“These numbers, and the conclusions drawn, are a complete joke.”

Is the NIH figure of a 17% failure rate in preventing HIV transmission also a joke?

“Thailand has about 10,000 new cases per year which is far from what is presented in this article.”

Perhaps it’s just a difference in the way the word “registered” is used here. The author is not saying that there were 570,000 new cases, but that the number of HIV-positive adults and children has risen to 570,000.

“A large percentage of these cases are from other risk factors, namely drug use, not from sexual contact.”

Anal sodomy has always been the number one threat.

“Drawing the conclusion that condom use is ineffective is just dumb.”

Anywhere you look, the condom route has failed. But I guess observing reality is just dumb.

[ReignOfError]

Drawing the conclusion that condom use is ineffective is just dumb.

The statement is carefully worded: "the condom use program in Thailand is not effective." Condoms are effective in stopping the spread of HIV; getting people to use them every time, all the time, not so much.

[killjoy]

Is the NIH figure of a 17% failure rate in preventing HIV transmission also a joke?

I am not familiar with the number, but that would imply a 83% success rate. Given that people will have sex, I fail to see why promoting condom use is a bad idea.

[OrangeHoof]

Back when homosexuals were back in the closet and before anyone had heard of AIDA, I took a college course in pharmacy for lay-people. One day, the subject was birth control. It was spelled out what the efficacy rates of varioys birth control methods were (the Pill, IUDs, diaphragm, rhythm method, etc.).

When it came to condoms, we were told the CDC had evidence that condoms were 88% effective in stopping pregnancies. That told me that there was a 12% failure rate. But even worse, that doesn’t factor in the number of times the condom failed but the woman still didn’t get pregnant.

Now, the human sperm is a tiny sucker but it is enormous compared to a virus molecule. So, how was a condom that was mediocre at best at preventing a larger item such as human sperm from swimming upstream and impregnanting a woman going to be the “magic bullet” that was going to save the secual revolution from the much smaller HIV virus?

It never was. Telling gays to just stop having anal sex would have been a more compassionate response than to try to fool them that they could have “safe” sex if they just wore a condom. But, noooooooo, the politically correct liberals got involved which, of course, led to bad science, misinformation, increased government spending and demonizing anyone who actually spoke the truth.

A condom is better than no condom but you are fooling yourself if you believe it makes you safe.

[dsc]

“I am not familiar with the number, but that would imply a 83% success rate.”

Numbers comparable to Russian roulette. Do you play or recommend Russian roulette?

“Given that people will have sex”

And there is the fatal flaw in your argument. There used to be much less promiscuity, and much less anal sex, than there is in America today. Your “given,” therefore, is only an unwarranted assumption that people cannot be more responsible with their sexual behavior than they have been in recent years.

“I fail to see why promoting condom use is a bad idea.”

Run the numbers. The failure rates are not for a lifetime of reckless promiscuity, but for each episode thereof. IOW, if a person continues to practice promiscuous anal sex while relying on condoms to protect him, he **will** eventually contract HIV...providing that he has the stamina to persist in such behavior until the laws of probability kick in.

On the other hand, keeping the one-eyed trouser mouse in one’s pants and out of other men’s bowels has a 100% success rate.

Which would you recommend to someone you loved?

[wolf78]

When it came to condoms, we were told the CDC had evidence that condoms were 88% effective in stopping pregnancies. That told me that there was a 12% failure rate. But even worse, that doesn’t factor in the number of times the condom failed but the woman still didn’t get pregnant.

Well, any mathematical model should include these factors. You also have to keep in mind that e.g. if condoms prevented 88% of pregnancies over a year, on a per case basis they are far more effective.

Now, the human sperm is a tiny sucker but it is enormous compared to a virus molecule. So, how was a condom that was mediocre at best at preventing a larger item such as human sperm from swimming upstream and impregnanting a woman going to be the “magic bullet” that was going to save the secual revolution from the much smaller HIV virus?

The problem isn't the size of the virus, there are too many layers of "rubber atoms" for the viruses to penetrate the condom, so what's inside, stays inside. The problem is that average condom use is far from perfect, i.e. carrying a condom in a purse for 3 years or air trapped in the condom or men buying XL condoms when in fact they need medium size. The roughly 85% number (depending on sources) goes up to the high 90s / almost a 100% for perfect condom use.

It never was. Telling gays to just stop having anal sex would have been a more compassionate response than to try to fool them that they could have “safe” sex if they just wore a condom. But, noooooooo, the politically correct liberals got involved which, of course, led to bad science, misinformation, increased government spending and demonizing anyone who actually spoke the truth.

The problem is far, far more complicated than that. Vaginal sex with a person who has a high viral load is far more dangerous than anal sex with person (male or female) with an undetectable viral load. The problem of AIDS in Africa can be traced to the fact that (married) African men and women often had half a dozen affairs on the side at the same time, so when one got infected and had a very high viral load immediately afterwards before the body started producing antibodies, most of the others often got it, too. Simply saying "keep it in the pants" wouldn't have worked there, either.

A condom is better than no condom but you are fooling yourself if you believe it makes you safe.

That's why the ABC approach is probably the most realistic one (A - abstinence, B - being faithful, C - condom use, if you fail at A and B)

[killjoy]

Numbers comparable to Russian roulette. Do you play or recommend Russian roulette?

Bad attempt at a straw man argument.

There used to be much less promiscuity, and much less anal sex, than there is in America today.

I am curious to see your research on that one.

Which would you recommend to someone you loved?

I would recommend if the person does want to have sex, a condom should be used. It is a simple logical conclusion.

[scarsc]

Catholic researchers are going to come to conclusions to support the official Catholic position. There’s a lot more confidence in research conducted by independent researchers. The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not. Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users. For example, in three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users. A multicountry European study of 256 HIV-discordant couples followed for an average of 20 months found that not one infection occurred among such couples using condoms during every sex act. As for the CDC, they state on their website “Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

[dsc]

“Catholic researchers are going to come to conclusions to support the official Catholic position.”

So, you think Catholics are liars?

“There’s a lot more confidence in research conducted by independent researchers.”

Of which there has been absolutely none in the last couple of decades, at least. Perhaps longer. The researchers you believe to be “independent” are in thrall to the universities or other institutions for whom they work, and to those who fund research. Publishing data that show condoms to be risky would bring certain ruin, professionally and personally.

A person would be wiser to believe a man who believes he puts his immortal soul at risk with every lie.

“The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies”

The most convinving evidence comes from the study that showed most studies to be bunk. Rather than trust the results of people who are as bound as any slave to a certain result, I would prefer to look at the results of various approaches. For instance, those African countries that relied on condoms fared very poorly, while those who relied on abstinence fared very well.

“For example, in three recent studies...”

Sorry, recent studies from secular academia are simply not credible. The lavendar mafia is firmly in the saddle. It is much wiser to look at the actual outcome of policies on a national level...not to mention the science that shows latex condoms to have holes large enough to permit passage of the HIV bug.

“As for the CDC, they state on their website “Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

Uh, huh. And what is meant by “highly?” 70%? 80%? 90%?

Would you play Russian roulette at 90% odds?

[dsc]

Oops, posting before my coffee again.

The CDC is quoted as saying “Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing ****heterosexual**** sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

That’s like claiming that aspirin is highly effective in preventing elephants from turning into eels.

The culture of death has for decades now been predicting (and longing for) an epidemic of AIDS among heterosexuals. Hasn’t happened; ain’t gonna happen. Normal sexual activity very rarely results in the transmission of HIV, condom or no condom. Further, in the cases where it is blamed, I think somebody’s lying.

Old joke from way back when AIDS was called “the gay plague,” and there was thought to be a connection with Haiti (other than rampant homosexual prostitution):

Q: What’s the hardest thing about telling your parents that you have AIDS?
A: Convincing them that you’re Haitian.

Anal sex is for a number of medical reasons a very effective way to transmit the virus. This holds whether the sodomized individual is male or female.

Normal sex is for a number of medical reasons a very ineffective way to transmit the virus. This holds for both men and women, although the odds seem to be worse for women.

So, why would the CDC say something as stupid as that condoms prevent something that wasn’t going to happen anyway?

Is there any possible reason other than a desire to deceive?

Here’s something that was posted a couple of months ago:

During the post-pill and pre-HIV period the condom because of its method failure rate of more than 5% and its user failure rate of 15% was despised as a method of family planning. Yet the singular focus of the anti-AIDS campaign over the last 10 years has been to eulogize the protective qualities of the condom as a shield against the pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases (STD). With no vaccine in sight and lacking the moral courage to embrace chastity, contemporary society, by marketing the condom as the solution to the HIV/AIDs pandemic, has put all its eggs in a condom basket. Yet the very experts who promote the condom as a strategic weapon against HIV/AIDs are silent in regard to its failure as a contraceptive. Nor do they highlight the care with which condoms must be ‘stored and transported’, HIV/AIDS epidemiology experts have established that not only is latex heat, cold, light and pressure sensitive but it is also adversely affected by humidity, ozone, air pollutants and deteriorates over time[1]. With this in mind, keeping a condom in a wallet, purse or car glove-box compartment would appear to violate the stringent storage requirements to maintain it in a good condition. In an experiment to test the effectiveness of condoms against HIV, researchers filled condoms with a liquid containing plastic molecules analogous to the AIDS virus: i.e., they were similar in shape and size. These plastic particles were placed inside a condom with a glass plunger inside the condom. This arrangement was designed to imitate many of the ‘environmental’ factors operative during intercourse. By testing condoms in an active in-vitro (test tube) system which simulated key physical conditions that influence viral particle leakage an accurate understanding could be obtained of the protective attributes of condoms during actual coitus. The test quantitatively addresses pressure, pH, temperature, surfactant properties (surface tension) and anatomical geometry. Leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 out of the 89 condoms tested. This result represents a failure rate of 30%.[2] Highly qualified researchers in the field of latex technology are now calling into question the merit of promoting condoms as a method of stopping the transmission of HIV-AIDS. For instance C.M. Rowland, Ph.D., editor of the journal Rubber Chemistry and Technology, wrote as long ago as 1992 to the Washington Post) stating:

“... Electron micrographs reveal voids (holes) 5 microns in size (50 times larger than the virus), while fracture mechanics analyses, sensitive to the largest flaws present, suggest inherent flaws as large as 50 microns (500 times the size of the virus”.)