CONDOMS are useless when it comes to HIV protection ?

[polish_aristocrat]

this article says so:

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/...ivaids-theory/

CONDOMS AS PROTECTION

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 effortto 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.

[who]

Hmm, interesting. What we need is some device which instantly tests a pin prick of blood for the HIV virus.. so you can simply NOT fuck those aids infected african whores.

[The Duck]

CIA engineered viruses are mean dude.

[cranki]

[Phoenix]

we're all gonna die!!!!

[sortie]

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

this article says so:

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/...ivaids-theory/

Yeah, but HOW FAST can they get through the latex?
Maybe we can just fuck really quick and still be safe.

[SpyCam]

they are actually useful when you wear them but have no sex!

[Libertine]

Complete bullshit.

First, remember that the size of the HIV virus itself is unimportant. As long as the fluids that carry the virus don't get through, you're pretty much fine.

Second, even if minimal amounts of the carried fluid and thus the virus would get through, this would still greatly decrease exposure, up to the point where infection would be extremely unlikely. Remember, even unsafe vaginal sex with someone who is HIV-positive gives a fairly small chance to get infected (especially for the man), so decreasing exposure a millionfold would naturally be pretty damn beneficial.

Finally, there is plenty of research on HIV-discordant couples which clearly proves that condoms are extremely effective. Anyone who doubts this should take a moment and google it.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by who

Hmm, interesting. What we need is some device which instantly tests a pin prick of blood for the HIV virus.. so you can simply NOT fuck those aids infected african whores.

Wouldn't work in the (rather common) cases where viral load is so low as to be virtually undetectable.

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Complete bullshit.

First, remember that the size of the HIV virus itself is unimportant. As long as the fluids that carry the virus don't get through, you're pretty much fine.

http://misc.mailarchive.ca/health.ai...4-10/0269.html

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.

[cooluks]

I agree. Even with condom the virus can still go thru...

[Rhesus]

Clinically irrelevant nonsense spread by the pope to prevent him from losing grip on one of the issues he propagates.

[Violetta]

Im not worried.

[who]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Wouldn't work in the (rather common) cases where viral load is so low as to be virtually undetectable.

Didn't know that. Thanks for the education

[Rhesus]

The viral particles are present in all bodily fluids, so theoretically one can contract HIV even by kissing someone (and ingesting the other's saliva). Remember though that chances of contracting HIV through normal vaginal sexual contact are in the range of .1% per coitus. The viral load in saliva is probably a lot lower, which is why the chance of contracting it that way is negligibly small. There is no documented case of HIV contraction in that way.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

http://misc.mailarchive.ca/health.ai...4-10/0269.html

Note that I said "fluids". Try filling a condom with water (or sperm), and hanging it upside down. Then check how much comes through. (the answer: nothing detectable)

Now keep in mind that "free virus particles" are to be found within the fluid. Therefore, if the fluid is contained, most or even all of the viral particles will be contained as well. Therefore, condoms would still give awesome protection, even in thise case.

By far the biggest risk with condoms is that they tear or slip off due to improper usage. Next to that the risk of a well-made condom letting the virus slip through is negligible.

[_Richard_]

interesting points.. but wouldn't HIV be much more widespread if this was true?

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Rhesus

The viral particles are present in all bodily fluids, so theoretically one can contract HIV even by kissing someone (and ingesting the other's saliva). Remember though that chances of contracting HIV through normal vaginal sexual contact are in the range of .1% per coitus. The viral load in saliva is probably a lot lower, which is why the chance of contracting it that way is negligibly small. There is no documented case of HIV contraction in that way.

I have heard it said that, on average, one would have to ingest about 37 liters of saliva to become infected


Edit: the chance of infection through unprotected sex is rather higher for women, by the way. Also, other STDs increase chances of infection (by fucking up the skin).

[Rhesus]

Originally Posted by Libertine

I have heard it said that, on average, one would have to ingest about 37 liters of saliva to become infected


Edit: the chance of infection through unprotected sex is rather higher for women, by the way. Also, other STDs increase chances of infection (by fucking up the skin).

Yep, and naturally it depends on the viral load of the infector as well.

[polle54]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Complete bullshit.

First, remember that the size of the HIV virus itself is unimportant. As long as the fluids that carry the virus don't get through, you're pretty much fine.

Second, even if minimal amounts of the carried fluid and thus the virus would get through, this would still greatly decrease exposure, up to the point where infection would be extremely unlikely. Remember, even unsafe vaginal sex with someone who is HIV-positive gives a fairly small chance to get infected (especially for the man), so decreasing exposure a millionfold would naturally be pretty damn beneficial.

Finally, there is plenty of research on HIV-discordant couples which clearly proves that condoms are extremely effective. Anyone who doubts this should take a moment and google it.

thanks for bringing some sense back to this post!

[Verity]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Complete bullshit.

First, remember that the size of the HIV virus itself is unimportant. As long as the fluids that carry the virus don't get through, you're pretty much fine.

Second, even if minimal amounts of the carried fluid and thus the virus would get through, this would still greatly decrease exposure, up to the point where infection would be extremely unlikely. Remember, even unsafe vaginal sex with someone who is HIV-positive gives a fairly small chance to get infected (especially for the man), so decreasing exposure a millionfold would naturally be pretty damn beneficial.

Finally, there is plenty of research on HIV-discordant couples which clearly proves that condoms are extremely effective. Anyone who doubts this should take a moment and google it.

thanks for the refreshing researched perspective here!!

as someone who does a lot of work in Africa, in heavily infected areas, these 'news' articles constantly drive me insane. condoms DO work, and to be perfectly honest I've seen it time and time again where churches are feeding people bs about having protected sex for their own gains.

one of the most heartbreaking things I've heard in Africa from a girl who had HIV. she told me that the aids problem was so bad because God loved Africans so much he wanted them all in heaven. Now, where would THAT idea come from??

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

this article says so:
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/...ivaids-theory/

Stupid article. "the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size" so what? Does it mean that everyone will be infected after usual handshaking? The pores on your hands have MUCH BIGGER diameter than O.1 microns. What does it mean?

For those who have straw instead of brain: HIV can't exist without HO2 (it's getting destroyed without it). HIV can't jump so it doesn't matter how big the size of pores on rubber until this rubber is able to hold watter inside.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Complete bullshit.

First, remember that the size of the HIV virus itself is unimportant. As long as the fluids that carry the virus don't get through, you're pretty much fine.

Second, even if minimal amounts of the carried fluid and thus the virus would get through, this would still greatly decrease exposure, up to the point where infection would be extremely unlikely. Remember, even unsafe vaginal sex with someone who is HIV-positive gives a fairly small chance to get infected (especially for the man), so decreasing exposure a millionfold would naturally be pretty damn beneficial.

Finally, there is plenty of research on HIV-discordant couples which clearly proves that condoms are extremely effective. Anyone who doubts this should take a moment and google it.

Wise words of a wise man.

[Antonio]

that's exactly what Africa needs !!! Governments , NGOs, and g knows how many other organizations spent the last 10 years trying to convince them to fuck with condoms and here comes this attention starved idiot cocksucking fag that hasn't seen a pussy in his fucking life telling them that condoms are useless

there are like two or three countries in Africa that actually had a great success in containing the AIDS epidemic and their two main weapons were awareness and condoms ........ oh wait, they might have used some voodoo magic actually, a tight one - you know, the one that doesn't allow the tiny little vicious viruses to go trough the magic holes

[just a punk]

BTW, do you know how big the chance to catch HIV via usual heterosexual contact WITHOUT A CONDOM? It's about 0,3% and about 5% in case of anal sex. So even if your condom will be damaged during heterosexual act, you have a very small chance to get infected.

P.S. Medical ways of HIV transferring are much more dangerous. Note my words.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

BTW, do you know how big the chance to catch HIV via usual heterosexual contact WITHOUT A CONDOM? It's about 0,3% and about 5% in case of anal sex. So even if your condom will be damaged during heterosexual act, you have a very small chance to get infected.

P.S. Medical ways of HIV transferring are much more dangerous. Note my words.

Very good point, that last bit. The most dangerous bit, perhaps, is the failure of many countries to provide drug addicts with clean needles. Drug addicted prostitutes, the kind who are desperate enough to fuck without condoms, might be one of the biggest sources of fresh HIV infections.

[just a punk]

Course I didn't want to say that condoms are useless. Even 0,3% is a chance, so if you fucked someone infected w/o condom even once in your life, you could be that "lucky" one who hit those average-statistical 0.3%.

[polish_aristocrat]

Thanks Libertine and Rhesus.

[guti]

shit i need that protection!!

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by cooluks

I agree. Even with condom the virus can still go thru...

Even with a bulletproof vest a bullet can still kill you. I don't see cops and our soldiers giving them up anytime soon. If latex was so poor at protecting against HIV then many many more hospital workers would be HIV positive.

besides there are other thing to protect yourself from. Hep especially Hep C which can be fatal. Syphilis is also fatal if untreated. Gonorrhea isn't fatal but there are new drug resistant strains floating out there. Herpes how about that?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Very good point, that last bit. The most dangerous bit, perhaps, is the failure of many countries to provide drug addicts with clean needles. Drug addicted prostitutes, the kind who are desperate enough to fuck without condoms, might be one of the biggest sources of fresh HIV infections.

People that shoot drugs obviously don't care about life or whether they live or die so why are we wasting money giving them clean needles? Let them infect each other kill themselves faster and be rid of them. Maybe it will be more of a deterant.

[Juicy George]

Originally Posted by Libertine

I have heard it said that, on average, one would have to ingest about 37 liters of saliva to become infected

Did you learn this off Degrassi High as well?

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by GatorB

People that shoot drugs obviously don't care about life or whether they live or die so why are we wasting money giving them clean needles? Let them infect each other kill themselves faster and be rid of them. Maybe it will be more of a deterant.

Here's a little schematic of why we need to protect even them. Numbers indicate different "generations" of infection, relative to the source of our little epidemic. Letters indicate the route the infection took.

1A: Heroin-addicted prostitute.

2AA: Heroin-addicted prostitute #2. (needle-sharing)
2AB: Perverted housefather. (unprotected sex)
2AC: Drunken fratboy. (unprotected sex)

3AAA: Heroin-addicted prostitute #3. (needle-sharing)
3AAB: Perverted housefather #2. (unprotected sex)
3AAC: Drunken fratboy #2. (unprotected sex)
3ABA: Unsuspecting wife. (unprotected sex)
3ACA: Unsuspecting girlfriend. (unprotected sex)
3ACB: Party girl who has a one night stand. (unprotected sex)

4AAAA: Heroin-addicted prostitute #3. (needle-sharing)
4AAAB: Perverted housefather #3. (unprotected sex)
4AAAC: Drunken fratboy #3. (unprotected sex)
4AABA: Unsuspecting wife #2. (unprotected sex)
4AACA: Unsuspecting girlfriend #2. (unprotected sex)
4AACB: Party girl who has a one night stand #2. (unprotected sex)
4ACAA: New boyfriend. (unprotected sex)
4ACBA: Party guy. (unprotected sex)

See how that works out for the rest of society? And 4ACAA could easily be almost anyone... quite a number of people have sex with their long-term partners without testing for HIV beforehand. And hey, it's safe, right? After all, she's never slept around, maybe only ever slept with two or three guys in her entire life, in what she thought were monogamous relationships.

If you consider the fact that a single needle-sharing druggie can be the starting source for dozens (or hundreds - there isn't really a limit) of infections, protecting those sad junkies is pretty damn worth it.

[D]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Complete bullshit.

First, remember that the size of the HIV virus itself is unimportant. As long as the fluids that carry the virus don't get through, you're pretty much fine.

Second, even if minimal amounts of the carried fluid and thus the virus would get through, this would still greatly decrease exposure, up to the point where infection would be extremely unlikely. Remember, even unsafe vaginal sex with someone who is HIV-positive gives a fairly small chance to get infected (especially for the man), so decreasing exposure a millionfold would naturally be pretty damn beneficial.

Finally, there is plenty of research on HIV-discordant couples which clearly proves that condoms are extremely effective. Anyone who doubts this should take a moment and google it.

werd.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Here's a little schematic of why we need to protect even them. Numbers indicate different "generations" of infection, relative to the source of our little epidemic. Letters indicate the route the infection took.

1A: Heroin-addicted prostitute.

2AA: Heroin-addicted prostitute #2. (needle-sharing)
2AB: Perverted housefather. (unprotected sex)
2AC: Drunken fratboy. (unprotected sex)

3AAA: Heroin-addicted prostitute #3. (needle-sharing)
3AAB: Perverted housefather #2. (unprotected sex)
3AAC: Drunken fratboy #2. (unprotected sex)
3ABA: Unsuspecting wife. (unprotected sex)
3ACA: Unsuspecting girlfriend. (unprotected sex)
3ACB: Party girl who has a one night stand. (unprotected sex)

4AAAA: Heroin-addicted prostitute #3. (needle-sharing)
4AAAB: Perverted housefather #3. (unprotected sex)
4AAAC: Drunken fratboy #3. (unprotected sex)
4AABA: Unsuspecting wife #2. (unprotected sex)
4AACA: Unsuspecting girlfriend #2. (unprotected sex)
4AACB: Party girl who has a one night stand #2. (unprotected sex)
4ACAA: New boyfriend. (unprotected sex)
4ACBA: Party guy. (unprotected sex)

See how that works out for the rest of society? And 4ACAA could easily be almost anyone... quite a number of people have sex with their long-term partners without testing for HIV beforehand. And hey, it's safe, right? After all, she's never slept around, maybe only ever slept with two or three guys in her entire life, in what she thought were monogamous relationships.

If you consider the fact that a single needle-sharing druggie can be the starting source for dozens (or hundreds - there isn't really a limit) of infections, protecting those sad junkies is pretty damn worth it.

Well since you put it that way let's juts provide them with the herion too. wouldn;t want them to get any bad shit. How about this solution.


1A: Heroin-addicted prostitute.

Bullet to the head.

Problem solved. She wants to kill herself anyways. This is faster and more efficient.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Well since you put it that way let's juts provide them with the herion too. wouldn;t want them to get any bad shit. How about this solution.


1A: Heroin-addicted prostitute.

Bullet to the head.

Problem solved. She wants to kill herself anyways. This is faster and more efficient.

Actually, I do think we should supply addicts with drugs. Not for their sake, but for the sake of society. Many resort to theft to get their daily fix, costing society much more than it would cost to just keep them all nice and drugged up, preferably in a place far away from the rest of us. (that would have the additional benefit of limiting demand for a number of addictive drugs, thus reducing the number of drug dealers and, through that, the availability of addictive drugs and the new potential users that ever get into contact with them)

As for the "bullet to the head" solution... you know just as well as I do that society would not allow that, making it a rather pointless thought. You don't like addicts - neither do I. The whole "zomg they are EVIL and should be stopped by any means possible!!!1" thing just doesn't work. Hell, I'm pretty sure a country could wage a war on drugs and not achieve anything - oh wait.