This just in from God: Condoms give you AIDS! [Archive]

Underemployed

9th October 2003, 12:27 AM

From here: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html)

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which the HIV virus can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme (A forthcoming BBC documentary): "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."

CWL

9th October 2003, 12:45 AM

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate

:rolleyes:

Denise

9th October 2003, 12:54 AM

I do think people should use condoms. But they should realize that it's not 100%. I know so many people that got pregnant while using condoms. One should not have a false sense of security that they are employing safe sex. It is only safer sex. And a sperm cell is much larger than the AIDS virus.

Jon_in_london

9th October 2003, 01:31 AM

Ziggurat

9th October 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Denise
I do think people should use condoms. But they should realize that it's not 100%. I know so many people that got pregnant while using condoms. One should not have a false sense of security that they are employing safe sex. It is only safer sex. And a sperm cell is much larger than the AIDS virus.

Condom failure is almost never because of "permeability", but is generally because of ripping from improper use. Such failures can lead to both pregnancy and HIV transmission, but the best solution to the problem is education on proper condom use. The sort of statements the church seems to be making are counterproductive and false. Condoms are waterproof. Water molecules are much smaller than an aids virus. They are NOT permiable to viruses - the size of the virus compared to a sperm cell is competely irrelevant.

Stimpson J. Cat

9th October 2003, 01:49 AM

If this is true, the Vatican should be tried for crimes against humanity. How many millions of people will die because of this dishonest attempt to forward their religious agenda?

Dr. Stupid

wollery

9th October 2003, 04:11 AM

I think the condom companies might have a case for lawsuit. Doesn't this constitute unfair restriction of trade? Or something like that?

pgwenthold

9th October 2003, 06:28 AM

Brown

9th October 2003, 07:01 AM

It is my understanding that some condoms, especially those made from animal products, may include pores that can allow the virus to pass. This is not true, however, of condoms made from synthetic materials.

It is also my understanding that lubricants such as petroleum jelly can destroy the integrity of some condoms made from synthetic materials.

In addition, there is something to be said for pointing out that some devices provide a false sense of security. Some people "reason" that, if they have a certain protective device, then they can be as reckless as they want, thinking that the protective device will protect them from their own reckless behavior. (In some instances, it is actually better to have NO protective device at all than to have an unreliable protective device... but that's a topic for another thread.)

That said, it appears that the Church is being, shall we say, less than honest in this matter. It is this sort of thing that drives people of integrity away from the Church.

Ipecac

9th October 2003, 07:03 AM

Isn't it true that latex condoms are very effective in preventing HIV transmission while lambskin condoms are less effective?

pgwenthold

9th October 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Brown
It is my understanding that some condoms, especially those made from animal products, may include pores that can allow the virus to pass. This is not true, however, of condoms made from synthetic materials.

Take a condom made from animal products and fill it with water. Does it leak? If not, why should anyone think that a virus would leak through?

All materials are porous to an extent. However, the pores don't have to be smaller than the material passing through to do a good job of preventing passage. Look at a helium baloon. The pores in the rubber are many, many times the size of a helium atom. Yet, it does a very good job of holding the helium in (although given enough time, most of the helium will diffuse out but that is with a high internal pressure).

Don't let the church's propaganda get in the way of the science. the pore size is not an issue.

pgwenthold

9th October 2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Ipecac
Isn't it true that latex condoms are very effective in preventing HIV transmission while lambskin condoms are less effective?

Based on what?

Has there ever been a single documented case of HIV transmission that is attributable to failure of the condom because of diffusion through the membrane?

I remember an early study that came out where the transmission rate with condom usage was 0. But that was some time ago.

Brown

9th October 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Based on what? Do you consider "The Playboy Adviser" to be authoritative?

arcticpenguin

9th October 2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Brown

It is also my understanding that lubricants such as petroleum jelly can destroy the integrity of some condoms made from synthetic materials.

True in the specific, but not in the general. Petroleum jelly is not good for use with latex condoms, but non-petroleum-derived lubricants, such as KY jelly are OK.

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8776/28837/213508.html?d=dmtContent

Only use a lubricant designed for use with latex products. Never use petroleum jelly, mineral oil or any sort of hand or body lotion. Many of these products contain petroleum-based ingredients and may contain other chemicals that should not be put in the vagina. Vegetable oil is also not recommended. Latex is made from petroleum-based materials and will dissolve or weaken in petroleum-based products.

Use a water-soluble lubricant such as K-Y jelly or Astroglide, which can be obtained at the drug store. For purposes of disease and pregnancy prevention, a spermicidal lubricant, such as nonoxynol-9, is better. If either person begins to experience discomfort during intercourse, check the condom and discard and replace it if it has become dislocated or stretched out of shape.

Chaos

9th October 2003, 07:47 AM

Some months ago there was a story in TIME or Newsweek (I keep confusing them) that the South African government was giving out several free condoms with instructions to their use stapled to the condoms - so they were punctured and therefor useless.
That won´t really surprise me, though, as Thabo Mbeki, the Head of State of South Africe, steadfastly maintains the position that "AIDS has nothing to do with HIV".

Upchurch

9th October 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
If this is true, the Vatican should be tried for crimes against humanity. How many millions of people will die because of this dishonest attempt to forward their religious agenda?I was going to say that this is criminally negligent, but it's more than that. It's like actively telling them to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. It'd be the right thing to do.

HarryKeogh

9th October 2003, 08:11 AM

wait a sec, first the church tells us the evil child molesting pawns of satan gay folk gave us aids and now theyre telling us it's the condoms?

man, for being so against condoms the church sure is run by a bunch of scumbags.

c0rbin

9th October 2003, 08:41 AM

If this is true, the Vatican should be tried for crimes against humanity. How many millions of people will die because of this dishonest attempt to forward their religious agenda?

Die and go to _heaven_, Dr Stupid. Heaven is exactly where they want to be.

Ipecac

9th October 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Based on what?

How about this: AIDS.org (http://www.aids.org/factSheets/152-condoms.html)

pgwenthold

9th October 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Ipecac

How about this: AIDS.org (http://www.aids.org/factSheets/152-condoms.html)

Unfortunately, they don't provide a basis for their claim aside from the old "it has pores big enough for the virus to get through," which is a meaningless statement.

Are there any empirical studies that show that lambskin condoms do not prevent the spread of aids?

LFTKBS

9th October 2003, 09:38 AM

I am so incredibly angry with the Catholic church, yet again. I don't understand: they are bearing false witness in order to kill people! That's two Commandments right there! What is wrong with them? What is going on over there?

"Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through."

What?! So instead of being susceptible to transmission because of breaking or improper usage, we have now guaranteed that his wife WILL be infected, and for what? So that they can bear a child ALSO infected with HIV? I wish I could curse on this forum because I can't accurately express how insanely asd;jlfeowiu0q9 40958 jafkenaof409

Ipecac

9th October 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Unfortunately, they don't provide a basis for their claim aside from the old "it has pores big enough for the virus to get through," which is a meaningless statement.

Are there any empirical studies that show that lambskin condoms do not prevent the spread of aids?

Dunno. But if you put "lambskin condoms hiv" into Google, you get a whole host of links to sites saying the same thing. Some of these reference studies.

Expert (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/PreventionSexual/Q8966.html)

Trojan Condoms Warning (http://www.condoms-buy.com/trojan-Naturalamb-SPERM.htm)

FDA Link (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/babyside.html)

Postgraduate Medicine Online (http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/2000/04_00/pn_condoms.htm)

Denver Public Health (http://aidscentral.com/HIVFAQS.html)

Safersex.org (http://www.safersex.org/condoms/ss3.2.html)

USFDA (http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html)

Jon_in_london

9th October 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Chaos
Some months ago there was a story in TIME or Newsweek (I keep confusing them) that the South African government was giving out several free condoms with instructions to their use stapled to the condoms - so they were punctured and therefor useless.
That won´t really surprise me, though, as Thabo Mbeki, the Head of State of South Africe, steadfastly maintains the position that "AIDS has nothing to do with HIV".

I dont know if thats an urban legend or not (check out snopes im todmn lsy). But that story has been kicking around SA for years...

Mbeki is a curious chap... I fear he is succumbed to the African Politician Synrome (APS). APS dictates that each sufferer must completely lose his marbles and become a lunatic tyrant cleptomaniac paranoid crazy as acid type person.

This whole thing about HIV passing through pores in the condom originated in about 1994/5, at least thats the first I heard of it. Some idiot doctor in Malawi was writing letters to the newspaper saying this crap and the dept of health came down on him like a mountain of bricks..........

9th October 2003, 01:09 PM

9th October 2003, 01:11 PM

This just in from God: Condoms give you AIDS!
For the record: I said no such thing.

pgwenthold

9th October 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Ed

4X condoms have a disclaimer on their packageing that they will not prevent AIDS.

But I suspect that is for liability purposes. I'd really like to see some justification for the claim that it doesn't prevent tranmission of the virus aside from the old "it has big pores." Just a single case of HIV transmission due to diffusion through the membrane would be sufficient. Do they have that?

I don't think anyone really has that knowledge. They are just erring on the cautious side.

a_unique_person

9th October 2003, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
If this is true, the Vatican should be tried for crimes against humanity. How many millions of people will die because of this dishonest attempt to forward their religious agenda?

Dr. Stupid

Apparently the Pope may be put up for the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

JAR

9th October 2003, 11:58 PM

When I get married, me and my wife will not use any form of contraceptives.

The Catholic Church is giving good advice.

In Genesis Chapter 9 verse 7, God says to Noah and his sons, "And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."

a_unique_person

10th October 2003, 12:16 AM

Arrggh, not the OT.

It's easy for you to say. You don't have to carry the babies and give birth. Don't forget that the human reproductive system is geared towards a short, fruitful life, perhaps 30-40 years. Many women ended up dying in labour. With modern medicine, it is possible to have a large family all survive, including the mother, when just a hundred years ago, many would die before reaching adulthood.

Mr Manifesto

10th October 2003, 12:18 AM

Well, I'm glad you've said that JAR, because you are an idiot, so you have provided a public service by saying you won't use contraceptives and that the Catholic Church is giving good advice. It will ensure the smart people on this forum use condoms, and it will kill more idiots like you.

I'm with pgwenthold on the condoms preventing HIV issue. The main test is: does the damn thing hold liquid or not. Remember that the virus is not airborn: it doesn't just float through pores and waft away on a breeze until it finds a nice body tissue to infect. No matter how porous the material is, if it isn't letting fluid through, then the medium for the virus's transmission has been stopped.

Unless, of course, one of those links, 'expert' or otherwise, has some kind of empircal data for examination.

Denise

10th October 2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Is using a condom going to reduce your chances of contracting HIV?

Is not using a condom going to reduce your chances of contracting HIV?

What do you think is the better option?

The better choice is using a condom, which I stated in my first sentence.

Denise

10th October 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Condom failure is almost never because of "permeability", but is generally because of ripping from improper use. Such failures can lead to both pregnancy and HIV transmission, but the best solution to the problem is education on proper condom use. The sort of statements the church seems to be making are counterproductive and false. Condoms are waterproof. Water molecules are much smaller than an aids virus. They are NOT permiable to viruses - the size of the virus compared to a sperm cell is competely irrelevant.

A woman can only get pregnant a certain amount of days out of the month. AIDS transmission can occur at any day. Almost never, does not mean never. That's why I said it is safer sex but not safe sex.

Denise

10th October 2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Condom failure is almost never because of "permeability", but is generally because of ripping from improper use. Such failures can lead to both pregnancy and HIV transmission, but the best solution to the problem is education on proper condom use. The sort of statements the church seems to be making are counterproductive and false. Condoms are waterproof. Water molecules are much smaller than an aids virus. They are NOT permiable to viruses - the size of the virus compared to a sperm cell is competely irrelevant.

I tried to google the size of water molocules and the AIDS virus but could find nothing. I do believe you, but could you give me a link? Thanks!

Jon_in_london

10th October 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Denise

I tried to google the size of water molocules and the AIDS virus but could find nothing. I do believe you, but could you give me a link? Thanks!

Well a water molecule is H2O, prolly about the order of 10 to the minus 10 metres across and a realive weight of 18 Daltons.

The HIVirus is made of of very many proteins each with a weight of many THOUSANDS of Daltons never mind the lipid membrane coating and the tens of thousands of Daltons worth of RNA.

So a HIV virion is prolly about a million times larger than an H2O.

Im guessing.

Denise

10th October 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Well a water molecule is H2O, prolly about the order of 10 to the minus 10 metres across and a realive weight of 18 Daltons.

The HIVirus is made of of very many proteins each with a weight of many THOUSANDS of Daltons never mind the lipid membrane coating and the tens of thousands of Daltons worth of RNA.

So a HIV virion is prolly about a million times larger than an H2O.

Im guessing.

I am asking to understand. A million times larger? I assume someone has made this comparison? I am asking an honest question, I hope you are not being snotty in your answer.

Jon_in_london

10th October 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Denise

I am asking to understand. A million times larger? I assume someone has made this comparison? I am asking an honest question, I hope you are not being snotty in your answer.

Sorry, I have a cold ;)

http://www.polysan.spb.ru/english/aidsm13.html

HIV seems to vary between 50 and 100 nanometres in diameter.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C438.S03/C438Notes/C438n30Jan.htm

the covalent bond-length between O and H of 0.096 nm

So an H2O is 2x(0.096) = 0.192nm (at the most, in fact it will be less because the molecule is tetragonal (?) not linear).

so 100 divide by 0.192 = 520.

So an HIV virion is roughly 500 times bigger than H2O. This seems a bit odd to me, but there it is. :confused:

So I was correct to within 3 orders of magnitude!! :D ;)

10th October 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

So a HIV virion is prolly about a million times larger than an H2O.

Im guessing.

That's about right. I keep HIV viri as pets. They don't take up much room and are real quiet. Walking them is a bitch since they don't make choke collars that small.

Jon_in_london

10th October 2003, 04:06 AM

On the other hand, assuming volume= radius cubed

An H2O molecule would be about 0.0001 cubic nm
Wheras an HIV virion would be 100000 cubic nm

So you could fit roughly 10 billion H2O molecules in an HIV virion.
If my 'rithmetic is correct.

10th October 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
On the other hand, assuming volume= radius cubed

An H2O molecule would be about 0.0001 cubic nm
Wheras an HIV virion would be 100000 cubic nm

So you could fit roughly 10 billion H2O molecules in an HIV virion.
If my 'rithmetic is correct.

Guess that's why their water dish is so small

Mr Manifesto

10th October 2003, 04:11 AM

But, again, size doesn't matter because the virus isn't airborne!

Jon_in_london

10th October 2003, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Ed

That's about right. I keep HIV viri as pets. They don't take up much room and are real quiet. Walking them is a bitch since they don't make choke collars that small.

btw Ed: its a virion :teacher:

10th October 2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

btw Ed: its a virion :teacher:

Hellfire. THAT'S why they don't come when I call them!!!

10th October 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

btw Ed: its a virion :teacher:

Are viri or virons (what is the difference?) alive? Seriously. I have heard that there is disagreement on this.

Jon_in_london

10th October 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Are viri or virons (what is the difference?) alive? Seriously. I have heard that there is disagreement on this.

Well an individual virus particle is called a virion. When talking about a virus, you are talking about the entire entiity ie the HI virus refers to the whole thing. I think the plural is viruses, but anyway, Im not sure.

Are they alive? Define life!

They have the capacity to reproduce themselves so maybe they are. But then they cant reproduce themselves without a host cell so maybe they arent. There is disagreement. I am very disagreeable. :p

pgwenthold

10th October 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
But, again, size doesn't matter because the virus isn't airborne!

But we are talking about diffusion across a semi-permeable membrane, where the size of the particle is important.

My point is that since water does not diffuse at any appreciable rate, which you can convince yourself is true by filling the condom with water, then the suggestion that the virus is capable of diffusing is silly. Sure, it can. But I'd like to see any evidence that it does to enough of an extent to cause an infection.

Ipecac

10th October 2003, 06:54 AM

Okay, I understand being skeptical about the lambskin condom claim. We should be skeptical about everything.

But the Food and Drug Administration, the condom manufacturers, and the AIDS activist community all seem to agree that latex condoms prevent the transmission of AIDs while lambskin condoms do not. It seems a little peculiar that they would be in agreement on the effectiveness of both latex and lambskin.

I realize this is a bit of an appeal to authority. What I'm asking is, how did this agreement come about if there's no evidence for it?

arcticpenguin

10th October 2003, 07:11 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=857&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20031010/od_uk_nm/oukoe_aids_thailand_condoms

BANGKOK (Reuters) - A bevy of Thai bar girls, health officials and a transvestite have blown up condoms and paraded for a different kind of honour -- the title of "Miss Condom Asia-Pacific".

Featuring 20 contestants from four different nations, the contest aims to promote safe sex in Thailand -- a country on the frontline in the war against HIV/AIDS in Asia.

But instead of twirling batons or warbling show tunes, "Miss Condom" competitors wowed the judges with their condom-blowing prowess and knowledge about the virus, which has infected over seven million people across the region.
...
Thailand, where infection rates are falling after a campaign to promote condoms among commercial sex workers, is one of the region's rare success stories.
Who you gonna believe, a Thai bar girl or the Vatican?

pgwenthold

10th October 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Ipecac
Okay, I understand being skeptical about the lambskin condom claim. We should be skeptical about everything.

But the Food and Drug Administration, the condom manufacturers, and the AIDS activist community all seem to agree that latex condoms prevent the transmission of AIDs while lambskin condoms do not. It seems a little peculiar that they would be in agreement on the effectiveness of both latex and lambskin.

I realize this is a bit of an appeal to authority. What I'm asking is, how did this agreement come about if there's no evidence for it?

IMO? Political pressure and legal liability. Better safe than sorry.

My problem with the lambskin claim is that the justification provided, when one is, is wrong. It does not matter that the pores are bigger than the virus. Diffusion is far more complicated than that. Of course, it's something that does require a little scientific literacy (for example, you do need to have an appreciation for the sizes of things like viruses, solvents, and gas molecules), but still, people who understand these things really need to call people who make claims based on poor science.

Now, if they were to make a more justified claim, i.e. empirical studies have demonstrated HIV transmission when using lambskin condoms, I'll accept it. But this "it is theoretically true because the pores are too big" just doesn't cut it.

Ipecac

10th October 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
IMO? Political pressure and legal liability. Better safe than sorry.

My problem with the lambskin claim is that the justification provided, when one is, is wrong. It does not matter that the pores are bigger than the virus. Diffusion is far more complicated than that. Of course, it's something that does require a little scientific literacy (for example, you do need to have an appreciation for the sizes of things like viruses, solvents, and gas molecules), but still, people who understand these things really need to call people who make claims based on poor science.

Now, if they were to make a more justified claim, i.e. empirical studies have demonstrated HIV transmission when using lambskin condoms, I'll accept it. But this "it is theoretically true because the pores are too big" just doesn't cut it.

Fair enough.

Denise

10th October 2003, 02:26 PM

Would anyone here chose a lambskin condom or a latex condom when having sex with an AIDS infected person? Would you have sex with such a person at all? Is the failure rate of a condom in preventing pregnancy entirely due to ignorance of how to use a condom correctly?

MoeFaux

10th October 2003, 10:34 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1060672,00.html

neutrino_cannon

10th October 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
[
Who you gonna believe, a Thai bar girl or the Vatican?

Well duh!

A search for non-porous condoms will reveal that even if latex ones are permiable (which I think is a load of bunk) poly ones aren't.

There was some talk a while ago, IIRC, that perhaps contaminated medical syringes were a greater cause of the spread of HIV than previosly thought.

I seem to recall from a Planned Parenthood lecture thingie (could have been some other source) that a good deal of condom failure is due to incompetant condom users, resulting in about 10% loss of effectiveness due to clumsiness and stupidity.

And why does anyone find it the least bit suprising that any large religious institution would let nothing, especially the truth, stand in it's way?

peptoabysmal

10th October 2003, 11:26 PM

The "AIDS can pass through a condom" hypothesis is an old myth perpetrated by some scientist examining latex gloves under an electron microscope.

Condoms are produced with much higher standards than gloves and go through two layers of latex coatings over the mold, as opposed to gloves which go through only one coating.

The failure rate for condoms must be low in order to protect the reputation of the manufacturer. If I remember correctly if there is a flaw or failure rate of 4% the entire batch is scrubbed.

That being said I have also heard that regardless of how effective the condom is at blocking AIDS, that the rate of effectiveness of not choosing high risk partners is much greater.
In other words, having sex with a high risk partner and using a condom, is of negligable benefit compared to having sex with a long term or low risk partner, in terms of actual cases contracted. Anyone got anything on these stats?

ceo_esq

14th October 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
That being said I have also heard that regardless of how effective the condom is at blocking AIDS, that the rate of effectiveness of not choosing high risk partners is much greater.
In other words, having sex with a high risk partner and using a condom, is of negligable benefit compared to having sex with a long term or low risk partner, in terms of actual cases contracted. Anyone got anything on these stats? Still hoping that someone comes through with those statistics.

In the same connection, it would also be interesting to know the influence of condom use on general sexual behavior. To the hypothetical extent that reliance on condoms might make a person less likely to avoid sex with high-risk partners, it could - for some people - conceivably increase the risk of contracting the disease over the longer term.

Jon_in_london

14th October 2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Still hoping that someone comes through with those statistics.

In the same connection, it would also be interesting to know the influence of condom use on general sexual behavior. To the hypothetical extent that reliance on condoms might make a person less likely to avoid sex with high-risk partners, it could - for some people - conceivably increase the risk of contracting the disease over the longer term.

Define high risk...