Do condoms prevent the spread of HIV?

[Questioninggeller]

March 16, 2007, 4:14 pm
McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Preventione
...
Did he support the distribution of taxpayer-subsidized condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of H.I.V.?

What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain’s aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain’s side.

The upshot was that Mr. McCain said he did not know this subject well, did not know his position on it, and relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma.
...
Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
...


Full article: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/

The "Straight Talk Express" continues on, but it won't be visiting any science classroom.

[trvlr2]

I have lost the rest of the respect I :( had for him.

[quixotecoyote]

It gets better:

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

It kinda speaks for itself.

"I don't know, but I mean to find out" would have been respectable (if unbelievably ignorant).

"I don't know, but I'm sure I believe whatever Bush believes, and even though I admittedly don't know what I'm talking about, we should withhold funding." is not a respectable position.

[AgingYoung]

The inherent, naturally occurring flaws in natural rubber (latex) range from 5 to 70 microns in diameter.22 The average sperm cell is about 5 microns in diameter, and the average AIDS virus is about 0.1 micron in size.23 This means that, in terms of size, an AIDS virus can pass through a latex flaw as easily as a house cat can walk through an open double garage door. Pro-abortionists and others loudly deny this fact, but offer no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims.

Considering the joys of sex, the risk of getting aids isn't that big of a deal. You could look at it as the screw that keeps on screwing.

Gene
22 C.M. Roland. "The Barrier Performance of Latex Rubber." RubberWorld ["The Technical Service Magazine for the Rubber Industry"], June 1993 [Volume 208, Number 3].

23 C.M. Roland, Ph.D., Editor, Rubber Chemistry and Technology and Head of the Polymer Properties Section, Naval Research Laboratory. Letter entitled "Do You Want to Stake Your Life on a Condom?" Washington Times, April 22, 1992.

[skeptigirl]

I have lost the rest of the respect I :( had for him.I lost it when he supported Bush's torture policy.

[skeptigirl]

Considering the joys of sex, the risk of getting aids isn't that big of a deal. You could look at it as the screw that keeps on screwing.

Gene
22 C.M. Roland. "The Barrier Performance of Latex Rubber." RubberWorld ["The Technical Service Magazine for the Rubber Industry"], June 1993 [Volume 208, Number 3].

23 C.M. Roland, Ph.D., Editor, Rubber Chemistry and Technology and Head of the Polymer Properties Section, Naval Research Laboratory. Letter entitled "Do You Want to Stake Your Life on a Condom?" Washington Times, April 22, 1992.Where is your original source for this tripe? The Evangelical Gazette?

Here, this should help you find a source. (http://www.unitedforlife.com/condomhiv2otherwebsites.html)

This should also help, here's the magazine with the publication of Roland's piece (http://www.rubberworld.com/index.asp), and yes, I said magazine, not journal:

RubberWorld Online Search Page
Your search for efficacy of condoms returned no hits.

RubberWorld Online Search Page
Your search for hiv returned 1 hit(s), 1 to 1 are listed below.

1Articles and Archives
Description: The barrier performance of latex rubber-by C.M. Roland, Naval Research Laboratory. The author cites bibliography and provides a discussion of flaws in latex barriers, commonly used and promoted to prevent the transmission of HIV, which raise important questions about safety.


Probably no one else thought to enter their latex or condom research in RubberWorld magazine (http://www.rubberworld.com/bsrwmag.asp). Clever little Discovery Institute type ploy, put your crap in a magazine to give it credibility. Leak it to the press then cite the press as a source, "hey, I didn't say it, it's in the New York Times". That's the Karl Rove scam. Here we have, "look, it's in a [cough cough] journal, it's published." That's the kind of crap these guys pull on the people who don't recognize the difference. It's straight from the liars handbook. Yes sir, lie to those suckers, you know better what's good for them and you know it's a fact condoms don't work cause they said it in your church.

A-holes!!!! Do I sound upset? Take a guess.

[skeptigirl]

Here, AG, try some real science for a change. You might actually like it.

CDC; How Effective Are Latex Condoms in Preventing HIV? (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm)

CDC Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel: Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf)

Real peer reviewed sources:

Pinkerton SD and Abramson PR. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44:1303-1312.

Davis KR and Weller SC. The effectiveness of condoms in reducing heterosexual transmission of HIV. Fam Plann Perspect 1999;31:272-279.

Weller S, Davis K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[Questioninggeller]

Where is your original source for this tripe? The Evangelical Gazette?

Here, this should help you find a source. (http://www.unitedforlife.com/condomhiv2otherwebsites.html)

This should also help, here's the magazine with the publication of Roland's piece (http://www.rubberworld.com/index.asp), and yes, I said magazine, not journal:




Probably no one else thought to enter their latex or condom research in RubberWorld magazine (http://www.rubberworld.com/bsrwmag.asp). Clever little Discovery Institute type ploy, put your crap in a magazine to give it credibility. Leak it to the press then cite the press as a source, "hey, I didn't say it, it's in the New York Times". That's the Karl Rove scam. Here we have, "look, it's in a [cough cough] journal, it's published." That's the kind of crap these guys pull on the people who don't recognize the difference. It's straight from the liars handbook. Yes sir, lie to those suckers, you know better what's good for them and you know it's a fact condoms don't work cause they said it in your church.

A-holes!!!! Do I sound upset? Take a guess.

AgingYoung does this continuously. For example, just look at his "sources" for creationist lies in other threads.

[skeptigirl]

Then there is this Uganda reverses the tide of HIV/AIDS (http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm)Uganda's success in reducing high HIV infection rates is the result of high-level political commitment to HIV prevention and care, involving a wide range of partners and all sectors of society. Same-day results for HIV tests and social marketing of condoms and self-treatment kits for sexually transmitted infections, backed up by sex education programmes, have helped reduce very high HIV infection rates.

...Since 1990, a USAID-funded scheme to increase condom use through social marketing of condoms has boosted condom use from 7% nationwide to over 50% in rural areas and over 85% in urban areas. ... Which unfortunately reversed when the abstinence only idiots got their godly reward for voting for Bush.

HIV in Uganda no longer falling; Nature;2006 (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060814/full/060814-13.html)These successes came in the 1990s and were attributed to the country's ABC strategy, for 'Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms' (see 'Uganda's HIV epidemic ...Sorry, the rest is not free. But there is more:

UNAIDS, Uganda (http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countries/Uganda.asp)There are three major sources of funds for HIV-related activities; the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Global Fund and the World Bank Multi-Country AIDS Program (the latter has closed). The United Nations (UN) and bilateral donors provide additional funding. Donor coordination is still fragmented, however, but is improving.

Financial constraints arising from suspension of Global Fund support and failure to obtain Round 6 funding have affected the ability of the country to deliver the agreed response to AIDS. In addition, the unexpected closure of the MAP project has resulted in a break in service delivery, district level planning and mainstreaming of HIV into the work of various sectors.

It is now acknowledged in Uganda that while HIV prevalence decreased in the 1990s and has been stable since about 2000, the burden of the AIDS epidemic has grown.Most of this was a direct result of Bush's restrictions on aid requiring half be spent on useless abstinence only programs and on any mention of the abortion procedure as a requirement for how the funds were to be used.

:a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2: :a2: :a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2::a2: :a2: :a2::a2::a2::a2:

[clarsct]

It's ok.

AIDS has already been cured. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77176)

[AgingYoung]

Questioninggeller,

Could you please quote me and my 'creationsist' views or would you prefer to speak out your hat. I suppose if you'd like to continue to talk out your hat that's cool but I'd like to note you are sitting on this hat. This asshattery you're engaging in presents the problem of us not knowing what you're pulling out your hat and what your pulling .... well, you know.

Gene


AgingYoung does this continuously. For example, just look at his "sources" for creationist lies in other threads.

[SezMe]

Gene, how 'bout addressing the issues raised in the OP instead of some slight from QG?

[AgingYoung]

SezMe,

I might consider the idea. I do agree that when it comes to the concept of getting to the bottom of a matter people that want to divert attention from that matter aren't of much help.

For now I'd like to comment on the Original Post. I've noticed that often people make an OP and point to some idea without really making any particular comment. It seems to me a lemming sort of behavior where they're more interested in which way the herd is moving rather than stating something definitive.

What do you think?

Gene

[skeptigirl]

Well AG, I'd sure like a reply from you about that church propaganda claim condoms are not effective against HIV and it is related to what McCain's utterances were about in the OP.

[AgingYoung]

skeptigirl,

I'll do this much for you. If you can specifically cite any 'utterances' from the OP I'll address them.

I'll further do this for you. I do agree that condoms are more effective against the spread of STD’s than nothing.

Further, I just got off the phone with one of the most beautiful woman in God's creation; my aunt Wilhelmina Mae. :) God bless that woman. I'm in a rarified mood.

Gene

[skeptigirl]

First things first:

This was referred to I believe in another thread as AG challenged Q to cite the post in question.

[snip]

So unless you have a different verse in mind, AG, this one has nothing to do with the expanding Universe we observe from our vantage point on Earth.You'll have to go to the other thread to keep this one on topic.

[skeptigirl]

skeptigirl,

I'll do this much for you. If you can specifically cite any 'utterances' from the OP I'll address them.

I'll further do this for you. I do agree that condoms are more effective against the spread of STD’s than nothing.

Further, I just got off the phone with one of the most beautiful woman in God's creation; my aunt Wilhelmina Mae. :) God bless that woman. I'm in a rarified mood.

GeneI'm asking you to address your post citing a magazine article making unsupported claims about condoms. You can read the OP as well as anyone else. If Q thinks it's more important to keep the thread to McCain and not this particular issue McCain had a bumbling reply to, then Q can say so.

If you agree condoms are effective against HIV spread, (no one is claiming foolproof), then why did you cite a non-peer reviewed article claiming otherwise, but more importantly, what do you think about the misleading use of that citation by a multitude of Evangelical web sites? Is that what your God wants? People to lie about condoms not protecting from HIV in order to coerce others into abstaining from having sex?

What's the point in claiming that article was "published" if not to mislead people that it was published in the same way a scientific journal with peer review publishes research?

[SezMe]

For now I'd like to comment on the Original Post. I've noticed that often people make an OP and point to some idea without really making any particular comment.

What do you think?
I think you are right. I've seen too many OPs that try to raise some dust without making a clear point. But I don't think Q's (as skeptigirl lovingly calls him :) ) OP falls into this category. His statement that:

The "Straight Talk Express" continues on, but it won't be visiting any science classroom.

makes it clear that he thinks McCain ignores science in favor of politics. So, assuming my interpretation of the OP is correct, please do comment on it.

[Slimething]

Quote:
The inherent, naturally occurring flaws in natural rubber (latex) range from 5 to 70 microns in diameter.22 The average sperm cell is about 5 microns in diameter, and the average AIDS virus is about 0.1 micron in size.23 This means that, in terms of size, an AIDS virus can pass through a latex flaw as easily as a house cat can walk through an open double garage door. Pro-abortionists and others loudly deny this fact, but offer no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims.



Even without looking at the articles, I know your quote is absolutely wrong, Gene. Latex is exactly the same material most of us chemists use to protect ourselves from solvents like acetone (0.000308 micron (http://www.bio.umass.edu/microscopy/mol_sieves.htm)). Yes, solvents do eventually penetrate but it takes about 15 minutes for the protection to break down. Also, health care workers have caught HIV while wearing rubber gloves but only after the gloves have been punctured, torn or cut.

When is even a small amount of common sense going to penetrate your self-imposed barrier? Your ignorance is at astonishing levels. Do you really believe you're going to gain any credibility in this forum by lying? You'd have much better luck trying to indoctrinate very young children. But, then again, you'd find their parents knocking on your door, wouldn't you? Wouldn't your god protect you from them?

[Questioninggeller]

makes it clear that he thinks McCain ignores science in favor of politics. So, assuming my interpretation of the OP is correct, please do comment on it.

That is a correct assumption.

[Questioninggeller]

Remove my reply to AgingYoung to avoid feeding the trolls. AgingYoung, explain your citations per skeptigirl's questions.

[Questioninggeller]

I'm asking you to address your post citing a magazine article making unsupported claims about condoms. You can read the OP as well as anyone else. If Q thinks it's more important to keep the thread to McCain and not this particular issue McCain had a bumbling reply to, then Q can say so.

If you agree condoms are effective against HIV spread, (no one is claiming foolproof), then why did you cite a non-peer reviewed article claiming otherwise, but more importantly, what do you think about the misleading use of that citation by a multitude of Evangelical web sites? Is that what your God wants? People to lie about condoms not protecting from HIV in order to coerce others into abstaining from having sex?

What's the point in claiming that article was "published" if not to mislead people that it was published in the same way a scientific journal with peer review publishes research?

Just a reminder in case AgingYoung missed these good questions.

[ponderingturtle]

I have to say, I was expecting RubberWorld to be an entirely different kind of magazine, at least from its name.

[kellyb]

Considering the joys of sex, the risk of getting aids isn't that big of a deal. You could look at it as the screw that keeps on screwing.

Gene
22 C.M. Roland. "The Barrier Performance of Latex Rubber." RubberWorld ["The Technical Service Magazine for the Rubber Industry"], June 1993 [Volume 208, Number 3].

23 C.M. Roland, Ph.D., Editor, Rubber Chemistry and Technology and Head of the Polymer Properties Section, Naval Research Laboratory. Letter entitled "Do You Want to Stake Your Life on a Condom?" Washington Times, April 22, 1992.


Woah. Blast from the past, man.
I was actually taught that was a scientific fact in 7th grade.

Thank you for reminding me of Reason #972 why I'm glad I'm no longer a member of that weirdass religion.


I didn't even know fundies outside of the third world even still believed that myth today.

:confused:

[casebro]

It would seem to me that there wouldn't be many free virus 'cells' floating around in body fluids. I's think most viral bodies (correct term?) would spend most of their live inside of cells. Cells that could be stopped by anydamn condom. No condom? Then virus-bearing cells enter your body. When they die/get killed, the virus's are set free en mass to infect other cells. Protection? Prevent the interchange of cells. Semen one way, other cell-bearing mucous the other.

Hmmm... 'serum "free virus" count' vs 'cellular virus load' ???

[Slimething]

Excellent point, casebro.

That reminded me of another factor I forgot to counter agingyoung's ignorance. Latex is hydrophobic and extremely so. Whereas one can use latex products to avoid contact with even small-molecule organic solvents, they will eventually permeate the latex wall. However, this does nto happen with aqueous solutions as latex and water don't get along. Unless patency is lost, latex is a solid barrier to water due not only to its being a physical barrier but also because it electronically repels water and whatever is carried with it.

[skeptigirl]

It would seem to me that there wouldn't be many free virus 'cells' floating around in body fluids. I's think most viral bodies (correct term?) would spend most of their live inside of cells. Cells that could be stopped by anydamn condom. No condom? Then virus-bearing cells enter your body. When they die/get killed, the virus's are set free en mass to infect other cells. Protection? Prevent the interchange of cells. Semen one way, other cell-bearing mucous the other.

Hmmm... 'serum "free virus" count' vs 'cellular virus load' ???While there are no known cases of infection with HIV passing through a through latex barrier, whether it be a glove or a condom, free virus particles are indeed found in certain body fluids of HIV infected persons.

Viruses enter cells and that is the only place they multiply because they need the cell's infrastructure to replicate, then millions of copies erupt out of the cell to go on to infect new cells. When one speaks of viral load, it refers to free floating virus. We would have no means (that I know of) for measuring viral loads inside of cells unless those cells were in a petri dish or something.

[skeptigirl]

Here are some studies showing the low rate of seroconversion in health care workers exposed to HIV infected body fluids. They also show the factor which determines who gets infected after exposure is significantly related to the dose of virus one is exposed to.

Case-Control Study of HIV Seroconversion in Health-Care Workers After Percutaneous Exposure to HIV-Infected Blood -- France, United Kingdom, and United States, January 1988-August 1994 (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00039830.htm)The study included 31 case-HCWs (23 from the United States, five from France, and three from the United Kingdom) and 679 control-HCWs (who were from 190 of the reporting health-care institutions). Of the 31 exposures sustained by case-HCWs, 29 (94%) were needlesticks (all with hollow needles) and two (7%) involved other sharp objects. Of the 679 exposures sustained by control-HCWs, 620 (91%) were needlesticks (including 594 hollow and 26 solid needles) and 59 (9%) involved other sharp objects....

...The findings in this report indicate that, among the HCWs in this study, an increased risk for HIV infection following percutaneous exposures to HIV-infected blood was associated with three factors. First, the risk increased if the exposure involved a larger quantity of blood, indicated by 1) a device visibly contaminated with the patient's blood, 2) a procedure that involved a needle placed directly in a vein or artery, or 3) a deep injury. Second, the risk increased for exposures to blood from source patients with terminal illness, probably reflecting the higher titer of HIV in blood late in the course of AIDS or other factors, such as the presence of syncytia-inducing strains of HIV (3,4). Finally, the analysis of these data suggested that use of ZDV postexposure may be protective for HCWs. After controlling for other factors associated with HIV transmission risk, the model indicates that the risk for HIV infection among HCWs who used ZDV was reduced by approximately 79% (95% CI=43%-94%) (based on adjusted odds ratio=0.21; 95% CI=0.06-0.57). However, the limitations of the study design must be considered when interpreting these results.The limitations are from the fact that there weren't a lot of health care workers who contracted HIV to be certain of for example, the protective effect of taking AZT post exposure. We don't know the optimal dose, length of treatment or critical time the drug must be initiated by after exposure.

What we do know is what wasn't seen. In 1,010 health care workers exposed to HIV infected blood, none of the 31 who subsequently contracted HIV did so from exposure to very low total viral particles. In other words, even if virus managed to get through a latex barrier, it wouldn't be enough virus to cause an infection.

There are other studies as well.

On the basis of aggregated results from six prospective studies the risk of HIV seroconversion among hospital workers after a needlestick injury involving a patient known to have AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is 0.36% (upper 95% confidence limit 0.67%); the risk after skin and mucous membrane exposure to blood or other body fluids of AIDS patients is 0% (upper 95% confidence limit 0.38%). (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1451768)


Four of 1103 enrolled workers with percutaneous exposure to HIV-infected blood seroconverted (HIV seroconversion rate, 0.36%; upper limit of the 95% CI, 0.83%); no enrolled workers with mucous membrane (n = 75) or skin (n = 67) contact seroconverted. (http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/118/12/913)

Before one gets the wrong idea exposure to mucous membrane or broken skin is zero risk, it was zero risk when a small amount of blood was involved.

[skeptigirl]

Excellent point, casebro.

That reminded me of another factor I forgot to counter agingyoung's ignorance. Latex is hydrophobic and extremely so. Whereas one can use latex products to avoid contact with even small-molecule organic solvents, they will eventually permeate the latex wall. However, this does nto happen with aqueous solutions as latex and water don't get along. Unless patency is lost, latex is a solid barrier to water due not only to its being a physical barrier but also because it electronically repels water and whatever is carried with it.Again, not to detract from the real point which is latex works well as a barrier to HIV infected body fluids, but regarding the water, leave your open box of latex gloves in an area of high humidity for a couple weeks and they tear when you put them on. I'm not sure what happens to the molecular integrity, but something does.

I tried using latex gloves to put an oil based stain on wood and the gloves dissolved rather quickly. But they work fine for changing the oil in one's car and for gardening and cleaning the pine needles out of the gutters as long as they don't tear. It really saves having to clean under one's fingernails later. ;) (BTW, I do buy my own, I don't pilfer them. I have my own medical practice.)

[Slimething]

Again, not to detract from the real point which is latex works well as a barrier to HIV infected body fluids, but regarding the water, leave your open box of latex gloves in an area of high humidity for a couple weeks and they tear when you put them on. I'm not sure what happens to the molecular integrity, but something does.

I"ve noticed that latex gloves in an open box of get yellow and brittle as time goes by. I'm not sure if it's the humidy or oxygen but tend to think it's primarily oxygen breaking down the latex. Nitrile has pretty much replaced latex, though, due to allergy concerns.

I tried using latex gloves to put an oil based stain on wood and the gloves dissolved rather quickly.

Aromatic solvents such as toluene and xylenes eat right through latex. There was probably some toluene in the product you used.

(BTW, I do buy my own, I don't pilfer them. I have my own medical practice.)

Next time the sales rep comes around, ask them for a glove/chemical selection chart. If you order from a large science supply house like Fisher or VWR, the main catalogs usually have one in the glove section or in the back of the catalog.

[clarsct]

I"ve noticed that latex gloves in an open box of get yellow and brittle as time goes by. I'm not sure if it's the humidy or oxygen but tend to think it's primarily oxygen breaking down the latex. Nitrile has pretty much replaced latex, though, due to allergy concerns.



Aromatic solvents such as toluene and xylenes eat right through latex. There was probably some toluene in the product you used.



Next time the sales rep comes around, ask them for a glove/chemical selection chart. If you order from a large science supply house like Fisher or VWR, the main catalogs usually have one in the glove section or in the back of the catalog.
I was thinking the same thing..it isn't the humidity, it's the oxygen adding itself to double bonds.

IF latex reacts with water, the reaction is so slow, I wouldn't think you'd need to worry about it during a sex session. Unless you're having sex for a month at a time, in which case I would think the heat caused by friction would be a bigger concern.

Think about this in a common sense vein...if the holes were big enough to let the HIV virus through, they would be porous enough to be no barrier to water.

Go fill a latex condom with water and see if it leaks....;)

[skeptigirl]

...

Next time the sales rep comes around, ask them for a glove/chemical selection chart. If you order from a large science supply house like Fisher or VWR, the main catalogs usually have one in the glove section or in the back of the catalog.I'm not sure what you mean by this? I get gloves from my medical distributor.

I do have Nitrile and they have come down in price to make them comparable to latex but they don't quite fit as well, better than vinyl but not as well as latex. So I still use latex, but keep Nitrile on hand for allergic patients.

Re the O2 vs water, you may be right but the difference was in an open box I had in the garage and the open boxes I have in the house. I really have no way of knowing humidity is the difference. It was a guess. But I don't think the water reaction is fast, whatever it is it takes some time. I guess all I can say for sure is something breaks down the latex in an open box in my garage over time and I live in a rainy climate and the garage rarely gets hot inside.

[blutoski]

It would seem to me that there wouldn't be many free virus 'cells' floating around in body fluids. I's think most viral bodies (correct term?) would spend most of their live inside of cells. Cells that could be stopped by anydamn condom. No condom? Then virus-bearing cells enter your body. When they die/get killed, the virus's are set free en mass to infect other cells. Protection? Prevent the interchange of cells. Semen one way, other cell-bearing mucous the other.

Hmmm... 'serum "free virus" count' vs 'cellular virus load' ???

The only ones to worry about are the ones outside cells. The whole point of taking over the cell is to produce more virus particles and send them out to infect more cells. As a consequence, the way we investigate a patient's status is to draw some blood and count the number of free-floating viral particles. There are often tens of thousands of HIV particles in a mL of an infected patient's blood.

To answer the OP: no, condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV. They have manufacturing flaws, break, tear, leak, get put on incorrectly (yes, some people don't understand how to use them)... They will, however, reduce the chance of HIV transmission significantly, compared to deciding to go alfresco.

[skeptigirl]

...
Think about this in a common sense vein...if the holes were big enough to let the HIV virus through, they would be porous enough to be no barrier to water.

...A water molecule is smaller than an HIV virus. It has to be, HIV has RNA and a protein outer coat. That's a lot of molecules compared to 3 in a water molecule.

we have determined the diameters of mature and immature HIV-1 to be 110 to 128 and 132 to 146 nm, respectively. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7962259&dopt=Abstract)

The HIV diameter is between100-120 nm for the all particle, the diameter
of the core is ± 56,6 nm along the minor axis. (http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/immuno/1996-November/009099.html)


Average HIV particle is 0.08 um wide and the average sperm head is 4 - 5 um long and 2.5 - 3.5 um wide. (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Archive/Science/Q152145.html)

The scale of things (http://cnst.rice.edu/nano.cfm)

Micro vs nano in numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano)

[clarsct]

A water molecule is smaller than an HIV virus. It has to be, HIV has RNA and a protein outer coat. That's a lot of molecules compared to 3 in a water molecule.

we have determined the diameters of mature and immature HIV-1 to be 110 to 128 and 132 to 146 nm, respectively. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7962259&dopt=Abstract)

The HIV diameter is between100-120 nm for the all particle, the diameter
of the core is ± 56,6 nm along the minor axis. (http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/immuno/1996-November/009099.html)


Average HIV particle is 0.08 um wide and the average sperm head is 4 - 5 um long and 2.5 - 3.5 um wide. (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Archive/Science/Q152145.html)

The scale of things (http://cnst.rice.edu/nano.cfm)

Micro vs nano in numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano)

Well, that was my point. If the hole is big enough to let a virus through, then it may just be big enough to let something like a water molecule through.

(I DID pass Freshman Bio and Immunology, you know....;) )

[skeptifem]

from reading the question, i think maybe he was replying to wether or not DISTRIBUTION of condoms (instead of abstinence education) prevents aids.

[Darat]

Again, not to detract from the real point which is latex works well as a barrier to HIV infected body fluids, but regarding the water, leave your open box of latex gloves in an area of high humidity for a couple weeks and they tear when you put them on. I'm not sure what happens to the molecular integrity, but something does.

I tried using latex gloves to put an oil based stain on wood and the gloves dissolved rather quickly. But they work fine for changing the oil in one's car and for gardening and cleaning the pine needles out of the gutters as long as they don't tear. It really saves having to clean under one's fingernails later. ;) (BTW, I do buy my own, I don't pilfer them. I have my own medical practice.)


This is why condoms have a relatively short shelf life and why you can't use a standard condom if you want to use an oil based lubricant.

I was thinking the same thing..it isn't the humidity, it's the oxygen adding itself to double bonds.

IF latex reacts with water, the reaction is so slow, I wouldn't think you'd need to worry about it during a sex session. Unless you're having sex for a month at a time, in which case I would think the heat caused by friction would be a bigger concern.

Think about this in a common sense vein...if the holes were big enough to let the HIV virus through, they would be porous enough to be no barrier to water.

Go fill a latex condom with water and see if it leaks....;)


That is one of the standard quality control tests:

http://www.safesense.com/howrmade.shtml

...snip...

After electronic testing is complete, Quality Control samples are taken from each batch, filled with 300ml of water, and suspended for 3 minutes. Afterwards, they are examined for minute fluid leakage by rolling them on blotting paper. If more than a small number displaying flaws are found, then the entire batch is rejected and scrapped.
...snip...





I can also confirm from personal experience that they do retain water for quite a long time - when quite young my brother and I found my parents' supply of condoms and used them as water bombs...

[pgwenthold]

Think about this in a common sense vein...if the holes were big enough to let the HIV virus through, they would be porous enough to be no barrier to water.

Go fill a latex condom with water and see if it leaks....;)


Ding ding ding!

We have a winner.

If you don't trust water because of the hydrogen bonds, then try air.

If a molecule can go through latex like a house cat through a double garage door, how can you blow up a condom like a balloon?

[Slimething]

If a molecule can go through latex like a house cat through a double garage door, how can you blow up a condom like a balloon?

pgw, don't forget that agingyoung wrote that a virus can walk through the wall of a condom like a cat through a garage door. But it is no ordinary virus, you see. It is HIV, a holy, god-sent agent of destruction issued by god itself to punish the sinful. :jaw-dropp

Whatever happened to the angel of death, anyway? Is god getting lazy in its dotage?

[clarsct]

This is why condoms have a relatively short shelf life and why you can't use a standard condom if you want to use an oil based lubricant.




That is one of the standard quality control tests:

http://www.safesense.com/howrmade.shtml



I can also confirm from personal experience that they do retain water for quite a long time - when quite young my brother and I found my parents' supply of condoms and used them as water bombs...

Who didn't!:D


Or blow them up as balloons?


Christ, that's just a part of growing up. Eventually, one discovers that there are far more fun things to be done with them.....

My main point is that it is something easily testable at home. Anyone can go do this in the comfort of their own home, or in the public of their frat house and get the same answer. Thus, the premise is easily defeated.

[skeptigirl]

Well, that was my point. If the hole is big enough to let a virus through, then it may just be big enough to let something like a water molecule through.

(I DID pass Freshman Bio and Immunology, you know....;) )
I had to keep thinking about this...then I got it. D'oh!

[clarsct]

I had to keep thinking about this...then I got it. D'oh!
S'ok..just read your sig line....



Man, you almost spoiled my 'House' moment....;) :p

[ponderingturtle]

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner.

If you don't trust water because of the hydrogen bonds, then try air.

If a molecule can go through latex like a house cat through a double garage door, how can you blow up a condom like a balloon?

Or how can you blow up a balloon like a balloon? Hell even helium, the smallest molecule I am aware of does not diffuse out of latex balloons all that fast.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm asking you to address your post citing a magazine article making unsupported claims about condoms. You can read the OP as well as anyone else. If Q thinks it's more important to keep the thread to McCain and not this particular issue McCain had a bumbling reply to, then Q can say so.

If you agree condoms are effective against HIV spread, (no one is claiming foolproof), then why did you cite a non-peer reviewed article claiming otherwise, but more importantly, what do you think about the misleading use of that citation by a multitude of Evangelical web sites? Is that what your God wants? People to lie about condoms not protecting from HIV in order to coerce others into abstaining from having sex?

What's the point in claiming that article was "published" if not to mislead people that it was published in the same way a scientific journal with peer review publishes research?
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to
abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous
relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected
I guess the CDC is going to remain mute about blood transfusions. Arthur Ashe, rest in peace. :(

Anecdote: when I first used condoms, back in the late 1970's, I tended to get lambskin condoms (Natural Lamb brand) due to their feel. As the years went by, the AIDS/HIV phenomenon got more and more circulation. I learned from one of our flight surgeons that lamb skin had larger intermolecular gaps than Latex, and were thus less effective as a preventative against AIDS, as well as other STD's.

At that point, the lambskin was off of my shopping list. I wonder if the article cited was playing bait and switch with lambskin and latex.

ETA: Why do you refer to AgingYoung as "AG" instead of AY?

DR

[skeptigirl]

I guess the CDC is going to remain mute about blood transfusions. Arthur Ashe, rest in peace. :(

Anecdote: when I first used condoms, back in the late 1970's, I tended to get lambskin condoms (Natural Lamb brand) due to their feel. As the years went by, the AIDS/HIV phenomenon got more and more circulation. I learned from one of our flight surgeons that lamb skin had larger intermolecular gaps than Latex, and were thus less effective as a preventative against AIDS, as well as other STD's.

At that point, the lambskin was off of my shopping list. I wonder if the article cited was playing bait and switch with lambskin and latex.

ETA: Why do you refer to AgingYoung as "AG" instead of AY?

DRYou lost me on the blood transfusion thing and your comment about it is completely out of context. AY posted some crap about condoms. What is your point?

Re AG vs AY, you're right, it was one of those blind spot things now that I look at it.

[Ceritus]

Considering the joys of sex, the risk of getting aids isn't that big of a deal.

The first thing AY said that I actually agree with, and condoms making it even less likely to get aids so in a sense you can have sex many more times with less risk! Condoms are the best. Anyone reading this post is part of 2 billion years of successful Fu**ing. Sex is for fun, reproduction, stress realease! So many good uses for sex while I find the uses for the bible being two, and that burning and wiping ones own anus when the toilet paper is gone. Which brings me to a funny story, I ran out of TP and I only had 2 books I could live without one was my January 2004 Hustler the other was my families heirloom bible. Lets just say no one reads the old testament anymore anyways.