Gazette.com is experiencing technical difficulties.
News
Adoptive family seeks award for bomb dog that went to war
News Published: Wed, June 19, 2013
Ruby and Wade Ridpath with their combat veteran dog, Carlos, who served five years as an explosive-detecting dog in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Ridpaths nominated Carlos for the American Humane Association Hero Dog Awards in the military dog category. by Erin Prater erin.prater@gazette.com – “Bring him home.” As Ruby Ridpath typed those words into an [...]
News Headlines view all
- Bernie Herpin may face Sen. John Morse in recall, if he gets signatures
- FIRE NOTEBOOK: Reception canceled for Waldo exhibit
- Red flag fire warning for El Paso County, dry conditions all week
- Man in custody after traffic stop
- UPDATES: New areas to open temporarily Wednesday morning to Black Forest fire residents
Life
Cheyenne Mountain Zoo’s ‘gentlest giraffe’ dies at age 32
Life Published: Tue, June 18, 2013
Courtesy of the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo The Gazette – The most recognizable giraffe at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, known for her unique, nearly all-white coloring, died Tuesday morning due to complications of old age. Becky, a 32-year-old reticulated giraffe, had been on a “quality of life watch” for about a year and a half, the [...]
Life Headlines view all
A&E
DOG DAYS OF SUMMER: The dogs who went Hollywood
Arts & Entertainment Published: Tue, June 18, 2013
by t.d. mobley-martinez tracy@coloradosprings.com – I love dogs. And I’m not alone. Which is probably why they have found themselves pictured or portrayed since men began to walk upright. Cave paintings and Egyptian murals. Those “Blue Dog” paintings. Tin Tin’s Snowy, L. Frank Baum’s Toto in “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” Astro, Scooby Doo and [...]
Sports
Sky Sox use Chris Volstad’s pitching, solid defense to top Tacoma 4-1
Sports Published: Tue, June 18, 2013
by JOE PAISLEY joe.paisley@gazette.com – Colorado Springs starter Chris Volstad got into a rhythm and the Sky Sox defense came up with three big double plays to down Tacoma 4-1 Tuesday night. The first two double plays ended Rainier scoring threats in the second and seventh innings and the final, a line drive grab by [...]
Sports Headlinesview all
- Former Rockie Esmil Rogers shuts down former team in 8-3 Toronto victory
- Northern Colorado football camp entry fees given to Red Cross after fire
- Subhead
- KLEE: With limited roster, CSU football must rely on flexibility of coaches
- McBride and Paulsen can’t carry Colorado Springs Sky Sox to victory in 12-7 loss to Las Vegas
Business
New hires, promotions & honors
Business Published: Wed, June 19, 2013
The Gazette – Tom Reiter has been named chief executive officer and president of Rocky Mountain Health Care Services, which provides a continuum of services to people who are elderly, blind, brain injured, disabled or living with diabetes or AIDS. Reiter will start July 1. He has more than 23 years experience in health-care organizations, [...]
Business Headlines view all
Military
Army show at home base brings a case of nerves for Fort Carson soldier
Military Published: Mon, June 10, 2013
In The Soldier Show, the stars of the show are not only performers, but soldiers. The Soldier Show travels the world to entertain our soldiers and their families. The show came to Ft. Carson on Thursday, May 30, 2013. (Jerilee Bennett, The Gazette) by erin prater erin.prater@gazette.com – hen the Army’s “Soldier Show” rolled into [...]
Seth,
“”I’m certainly not arguing that people should not use condoms, they should…. I do not agree with the Pope’s religious stance on contraceptives or condoms”: I’m very glad to hear this. Thanks for the clarification. (That’s sincere, BTW. I don’t wish to misunderstand or misrepresent your position, particularly on an issue I care a lot about.)
To Guffman
In my little way to experiment if condom do have holes, I inflated a condom with air and also inflated a balloon with air. Both were tied and suspended with a twin. After about 18 hours, the condom completely collapsed while the balloon still remained inflated! The size of air molecule is 40nm and this simple experiment showed that the holes in condom is larger than 40nm. The average size of HIV is about 100nm and if HIV must pass through the pores of condom, it will only mean that the pores in condom is larger than 100nm. In the studies which suggested that condom protects HIV, we have not been told that truly the people involved in the study have been confirmed to have HIV. To suppose or suspect that somebody has HIV, is not the same thing as having HIV. It is not all high risk persons that eventually get infected. To prove that condom prevents HIV, we need HIV positive persons to have sexual intercourse with HIV negative persons using the condom for at least a year or two years. And let us not end up with the false statement that for those who will record failure with the condom that their failure was due to wrong us of the condom.
Let us not discard the statement of Roland because even because of his statement, the US government withdraw the grant of $2.6M that was to be used in a research to assess the effectiveness of condom in preventing HIV.
Let me explain how condom can prevent pregnancy: the semen contains not only the sperm cells but also the nutrients which the sperm cells needs for survival. The condoms with large pores >40000nm will allow some sperm cells to pass but the semen containing the nutrients will not be able to pass through. Therefore, the sperm cells will die of starvation and by that they will not be able to fertilize the egg. CONDOM THEREFORE ACHIEVE SUCCESS IN PREVENTING PREGNANCY NOT BY PREVENTING SPERM CELLS FROM PASSING ITS PORES BUT BY PREVENTING THE NUTRIENTS IN THE SEMEN FROM PASSING WITH THE SPERM CELLS, RESULTING IN THE CELLS DYING OF STARVATION. In the case of HIV, the so called 85% success of preventing HIV are at best cases where the presence of HIV infection before the sexual intercourse was not proven, and the 15% failure of the condom to prevent HIV are cases in which probably actual HIV positive persons had sexual intercourse with HIV negative persons with the use of condom! Instead of asking people to use condom to prevent HIV infection, why not ask them to know the HIV status of their sexual partner before having the sex? Let us not talk about window period because there is no scientific paper that has clearly shown how people in the window period can infect others!
Achebe Francis.
Achebe Francis,
- “In my little way to experiment if condom do have holes, I inflated a condom with air and also inflated a balloon with air. Both were tied and suspended with a twin. After about 18 hours, the condom completely collapsed while the balloon still remained inflated!”: In my own experiment, I have had heterosexual intercourse with condoms hundreds of times for more than 30 years and have not contracted HIV, nor have I impregnated anyone. Neither of us is a scientist.
If Roland’s conclusions were sound, other scientists would have verified it and built on it. I don’t see that they have done that in 15 years since he first published his findings.
- “To prove that condom prevents HIV, we need HIV positive persons to have sexual intercourse with HIV negative persons using the condom for at least a year or two years”: That will never happen. Not in this culture.
- “And let us not end up with the false statement that for those who will record failure with the condom that their failure was due to wrong us of the condom”: Why not? Have you used a condom? There are a number of ways to use a condom wrong, especially for inexperienced users. Here’s one: If you try to put the condom on inside out, you can transfer pre-ejaculatory fluid to the outside of the condom. If you then turn the condom around and put it on correctly, you can transfer that fluid to your partner. The fluid can contain both spermatozoa and HIV. That’s just one way. I’m not making this up.
- “Let us not discard the statement of Roland because even because of his statement, the US government withdraw the grant of $2.6M that was to be used in a research to assess the effectiveness of condom in preventing HIV”: I would like to see proof of that, please.
- “In the case of HIV, the so called 85% success of preventing HIV are at best cases where the presence of HIV infection before the sexual intercourse was not proven, and the 15% failure of the condom to prevent HIV are cases in which probably actual HIV positive persons had sexual intercourse with HIV negative persons with the use of condom!”: Sorry, I don’t understand your point.
- “Instead of asking people to use condom to prevent HIV infection, why not ask them to know the HIV status of their sexual partner before having the sex?”: Asking HIV status is a good idea, of course. Another good idea is not to have sex with complete strangers. You and Roland and the Pope and Richardson seem to be trying to talk people out of ANOTHER very good idea. People are going to have sex with strangers, and they are not going to ask about HIV status. For these people, using condoms is a very good idea indeed. You are trying to talk them out of it with bad science and Internet rumors. This is wrong and dangerous. You are putting people’s lives at risk.
Please stop.
To Guffman,
“In my own experiment, I have had heterosexual intercourse with condoms hundreds of times for more than 30 years and have not contracted HIV, nor have I impregnated anyone.” By this your experiment, you have neglected some details: 1. Have you done male fertility test recently to scientifically ascertain if you are viable or did you just conclude that because you produce semen that you also have active sperm cells? Have you also considered the possibility of infertility in your sexual mates? Have you forgotten that it takes two fertile persons to achieve conception? 2. You can talk of yourself that you are HIV negative but you cannot say the same of your sexual partners since you did not see it as important to know their HIV status before having sex, after all you know the proper way of using condom. But it could just be that all your sexual partners have been HIV negative like you. Why not experiment with the condom, and knowingly go ahead and have sexual intercourse with HIV positive persons. Please I advise you not to because for now that is a very risky adventure.
“In the case of HIV, the so called 85% success of preventing HIV are at best cases where the presence of HIV infection before the sexual intercourse was not proven, and the 15% failure of the condom to prevent HIV are cases in which probably actual HIV positive persons had sexual intercourse with HIV negative persons with the use of condom!” The point I was making is that in the study of 85% condom success in preventing HIV, the HIV positive status of the people used in the study was not stated. Everything was based on study done among high risk groups. Before you can say that condom prevented HIV from one person to the other, we must also have the records of their HIV status before and after the experiment.
The other points which you have not considered was the fact that HIV been an infection, can also be modified by the people innate immunity, nutritional status, and other back ground illness. Even research has shown that some people are naturally resistant to HIV because they lack CCR5 receptor which is very important for the HIV infection.
Dr. Achebe Francis
Guffman:
I agree with you that the proposition that HIV is passing through properly-used and non-defective condoms through osmotic process is unsustainable. The science would show this if it were true. The problem with condoms is simply misuse, leakage, and physical failure.
As for your statement “You and Roland and the Pope and Richardson seem to be trying to talk people out of ANOTHER very good idea”, I’m not sure which “very good idea” you’re referring to. I’m certainly not arguing that people should not use condoms, they should. I am, however, arguing that responsible sexual behavior is not something that occurs spontaneously, it needs to be taught, just like proper condom usage must be taught. And while I do not agree with the Pope’s religious stance on contraceptives or condoms, I do agree with him that simply supplying condoms to Africa is going to exacerbate the AIDS problem, not solve it. He makes a persuasive argument that the pattern of irresponsible sexual behavior that results from simply supplying condoms is detrimental to the prevention of AIDS, and that tacitly encouraging promiscuous sexuality increases the absolute number of sexual encounters, the absolute number of sex with infected strangers, and therefore it increases the HIV/AIDS infection rate above that which can be obtained by combining abstinence, chastity and monogamy with proper condom use, as the Uganda experience proves.
But I agree that Achebe’s information about either sperm or HIV passing through condoms is unsupported by the science, although transfer of both by condom failure is a significant problem that cannot be avoided even with proper use.
Therefore, the best plan is to minimize risky sexual behavior through cultural behavioral modification while also making sure that condoms are available for times when people have sex with someone other than an HIV-free monogamous partner. And, whether we like the Catholic churches religious beliefs, it is the single most effective proponent of responsible sexual behavior in Africa.
Achebe:
I would like to see some scientific verification of the statement you make regarding nutrients and semen, and that condoms are effective because they prevent passage of sperm but not nutrients. This does not seem logical to me. If the pores of a condom are 4000nm and will allow a sperm cell to pass, then the fluid that comprises the seminal fluid would also be able to pass. I do not have the scientific evidence before me, but it seems to me that the primary contraceptive benefit of condoms is simply the blocking of seminal fluid containing sperm. The effectiveness of condoms for contraception, while not perfect, has been known for hundreds of years, back to when sheep-gut was used as condoms by the French.
While it is true that condoms have a known failure rate, I believe that it is due to improper use and physical failure of the device.
As for HIV, the refutation that I have heard for the HIV-penetration argument is that HIV is contained within the seminal fluid and does not pass through the condom independent of the fluid. In other words, a condom is not like an osmotic filter that allows some particles to pass while filtering others, primarily because of the time and the differential fluid pressures involved. In an osmotic filter, the pressure difference between one side and the other is substantial, and it takes a finite amount of time for the filtration to take place, and in that process the fluid containing the particle to be filtered must pass through the filter in great amounts. Thus, in a osmotic filter for seawater, large amounts of seawater are forced through the membrane, which traps the salt and other contaminants, allowing only fresh water to pass. However, I have seen no evidence of significant flow of seminal fluid from within to without the condom that would carry a smaller particle like the HIV virus through the membrane. Your own argument states that sperm can pass through a condom but not the “nutrients”, which are contained in the seminal fluid, which clearly states that the seminal fluid cannot pass through the condom, which would make it highly unlikely, though not impossible, that either sperm or HIV would pass through the “filter” of the condom on their own, without some transport fluid.
We must also keep in mind that the amount of time that the fluid inside the condom is under any pressure at all is very brief, which does not appear to be enough to “filter” either sperm or HIV through the thickness of the condom wall.
I’m afraid that I cannot agree with the proposition that penetration of condoms by HIV viri is a problem. A much more serious problem with condoms is simply improper use, leakage between the penis and the condom, and physical failure of the condom.
CONDOM IS A WEAK SCIENTIFIC TOOL TO FIGHT HIV
Catholic News Service
YAOUNDE, Cameroon (CNS) — Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration that distribution of condoms only increases the problem of AIDS is the latest and one of the strongest statements in a simmering debate inside the church.
The pope was speaking to journalists aboard his flight to Cameroon March 17, and he was asked whether the church’s approach to AIDS prevention — which focuses primarily on sexual responsibility and rejects condom campaigns — was unrealistic and ineffective.
Lest it be taken out of context, here is the exchange that took place on the pope’s plane. The question’s premise was “The Catholic Church’s position on the way to fight against AIDS is often considered unrealistic and ineffective,” and the pope responded:
“I would say the opposite. I think that the reality that is most effective, the most present and the strongest in the fight against AIDS, is precisely that of the Catholic Church, with its programs and its diversity. I think of the Sant’Egidio Community, which does so much visibly and invisibly in the fight against AIDS … and of all the sisters at the service of the sick.
“I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money — which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, (money) doesn’t help.
“One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.”
The Holy Father is telling us the truth about the uselessness of condom in preventing the spread of HIV.
WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE HIV PARTICLE?
Dr. Holodniy reported that the average HIV particle is 0.08 um wide. That will be about 80nm.
According to Michael J. Hernon, U of MN, Dept. of Dermatology; The HIV diameter is between 100-120 nm for all the particles.
Adding the two findings, we can assume the HIV diameter ranges from 80nm to 120nm.
WHAT IS THE SIZE OF A HUMAN SPERM CELL?
The average sperm head is 4-5um long, and 2.5 -3.5um wide. Therefore we can say that the diameter (width) of a sperm cell is 2500 to 3500 nm.
Therefore, the human sperm cell is wider or larger than the HIV.
WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE PORES OR HOLES IN CONDOM?
Some people did not even know that condoms have holes! But the company that make condom tells us that condom has holes.
Industry admits naturally occurring defects
Even intact condoms have naturally occurring defects (tiny holes penetrating the entire thickness) measuring five to 50 microns in diameter — 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus, writes C. Michael Roland, head of the Polymer Properties Section at the Naval Research laboratory in Washington, D.C. and editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, in a published letter to the Washington Times. [In other words, just as rubber tires, over time, lose air, condoms (manufactured of the same product, rubber) also are porous.]
“… the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids about 5 microns (0.0002 inches) in size,” Roland states. “Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through the condom.”
The holes in condoms range from 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV. Therefore, the holes in condoms will range from 80 x50 = 4000 nm to 80x 500 = 40000 nm for the small size HIV.
The holes in the condoms could also range from 120x 50 = 6000 nm to 120x 500 = 60000 nm for the big size HIV.
Note with attention that the holes in the condoms are even larger in some cases to the size of human sperm cell! Now we know why condom has 33% failure rates in preventing pregnancy. We use to think that the failure of condom in preventing pregnancy was because of tearing or slipping out of the condom or due to rupturing during intercourse. But the true reason why condoms have 33% failure rates in preventing pregnancy is because the holes in some condoms are bigger than the diameter of human sperm cells. Therefore the condom could not be a good barrier to prevent the sperm cells from passing through!
In-use failure rates
According to an article by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, published in Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives May/June 1989, condoms have an 11.4 to 22.3 percent failure rate among teens. Studies of five brands of condoms, reported in the British Journal of Medicine July 11, 1987, showed a failure rate of 26 percent due to rupture and slippage alone. And the New England Journal of Medicine Mar. 23, 1989 showed condoms have a failure rate of 10 to 33 percent for preventing pregnancies in women 25 years and younger.
These figures represent rates of pregnancy. However, a woman is fertile only certain times of the month; diseases can be transmitted at any time. And condoms cannot provide adequate protection, industry officials admit.
CAN HIV PASS THROUGH THE HOLES IN CONDOM?
The answer is YES! Our government have accepted condom as the means of preventing HIV without any questioning of the proof of the hypothesis supporting condom use. But researchers are showing that condom truly helps the disease to spread.
Latex glove specifications
Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus.
Even if there were no pores in latex, in-use breakage and slip-off rates are “so high as to make condoms ineffective for protection against HIV,” says biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. David G. Collart, Ph.D., of Stone Mountain, Ga.
In fact, “the U.S. government has withdrawn a $2.6 million grant to study condoms because ‘an unacceptably high number of condom users probably would have been infected in such a study,’” he says, citing a 1989 article published in Infection.
In addition, condom manufacturers allow 0.4 percent of any given batch to be defective, before a recall is ordered.
However, teens say their sex education classes are not informing them of these facts. Condoms have been presented as a “safe and effective” means of avoiding both pregnancy and HIV/AIDS, they say.
WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
1. BE A STRONG VOICE TO PROPAGATE THE TRUTH YOU NOW KNOW. TELL EVERY BODY YOU MEET THAT THE NATURAL HOLES IN CONDOM IS ABOUT 50 TO 500 TIMES THE SIZE OF HIV. THIS MEANS THE HIV WILL PASS THOUGH THE CONDOM WITHOUT MUCH RESISTANCE,
2. ALSO TELL THEM THAT SOME CONDOMS HAVE HOLES EVEN BIGGER THAN HUMAN SPERM CELL. AND THAT IT HAS 33% PREGNANCY PREVENTION FAILURE RATE,
3. TELL THEM TO KNOW FOR SURE THE HIV STATUS OF THEIR SEXUAL PARTNERS, NOT AFTER HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BUT BEFORE IT,
4. TELL THEM THAT THE ONLY MEANS OF REDUCING HIV SPREAD IS TO BE FAITHFUL TO THEIR SPOUSES AND TO AVOID SEXUAL INTERCOURSE UNTIL MARRIAGE,
5. TELL THEM TO SHOW LOVE TO HIV POSITIVE PATIENTS AND TO ENCOURAGE RESEARCH THAT CAN BRING ABOUT A CURE OF THE DISEASE,
6. TELL THEM TO AVOID CHEMICALS THAT INHIBIT OR REDUCES FERTILITY BECAUSE REDUCED FERTILITY ALSO LEADS TO REDUCED IMMUNITY,
7. TELL THEM THAT ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES WILL REDUCE NOT JUST THEIR FERTILITY BUT ALSO THEIR IMMUNITY,
8. EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT GOD IN HIS WISDOM HAS COUPLED OUR FERTILITY TO OUR IMMUNITY AND THAT MOST CHEMICALS THAT ATTACK OUR FERTILITY ALSO WEAKENS OUR IMMUNITY AND PREDISPOSES US TO ILLNESS.
Dr Francis Achebe
Hi Francis,
After looking into your cut-and-paste work, I’m skeptical.
- “Catholic News Service”: Really, we need to say no more, do we?
However…
- “Studies of five brands of condoms, reported in the British Journal of Medicine July 11, 1987, showed a failure rate of 26 percent due to rupture and slippage alone”: The article by Wigersma and Oud in the British Medical Journal (NOT the “British Journal of Medicine”) is titled, “Safety and acceptability of condoms for use by homosexual men as a prophylactic against transmission of HIV during anogenital sexual intercourse,” and notes that “…because of the greater friction during anogenital intercourse the condoms must be stronger than normal.”
http://www.bmj.com
The failure rate due to rupture and slippage is thus skewed.
- “…the company that make condom tells us that condom has holes”: Prove that.
- “Even intact condoms have naturally occurring defects (tiny holes penetrating the entire thickness) measuring five to 50 microns in diameter â�� 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV virus, writes C. Michael Roland, head of the Polymer Properties Section at the Naval Research laboratory in Washington, D.C. and editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, in a published letter to the Washington Times”: Interesting that Roland had his own publication and couldn’t manage to get a condom story into it….
https://www.rubber.org/MngmntWeb/NonSecure/RCTsearch.aspx
He DID get it into a trade magazine (not a peer-reviewed science journal):
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+barrier+performance+of+latex+rubber-a014089514
Beyond that, Roland’s wisdom exists primarily on explicitly anti-condom websites. He apparently hasn’t even made Wikipedia.
- “The holes in condoms range from 50 to 500 times the size of the HIV. Therefore, the holes in condoms will range from 80 x50 = 4000 nm to 80x 500 = 40000 nm for the small size HIV. The holes in the condoms could also range from 120x 50 = 6000 nm to 120x 500 = 60000 nm for the big size HIV”: There’s this, from Columbia University Health Services: “Latex condoms, which are the least expensive, most accessible type of condoms at the moment, are designed so as not to allow transmission of the HIV virus, or any virus for that matter. The HIV virus is larger than the pores in condoms…. Good communication and accurate information between parents and children are more effective against risk-taking than scare tactics.”
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0588.html
This from Centers for Disease Control: “When used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective in preventing infection with HIV. If you are sexually active, latex condoms provide the best protection against HIV infection. Polyurethane or plastic condoms may also be used.”
http://www.cdc.gov/nineandahalfminutes/condoms.html
“Several years ago, there was also a claim that there were channels in latex films as seen under a scanning electron microscope (cites Roland). Although there were counter arguments on the claim, which attributed the channels to artifacts of the microscopy technique, there has not been any direct experimental evidence to refute the existence of channels in latex films. Nonetheless, the implications that there are channels in latex films and hence the films are porous to viruses can be safely discounted. This is based on the findings that latex films which are properly produced are impermeable to viruses and that if laser-drilled or needle punctured holes are artificially introduced, the extent of penetration has been shown to be a function of size and density of the holes as well as size and adsorptivity of the virus on the latex film.
“It is evident, therefore, that latex films leak viruses only when there are holes in them due either to manufacturing defects or the conditions under which they are used/stored.”
http://www.lgm.gov.my/latex_allergy/LPF.html
According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health, correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years. The same review also found condom use significantly reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men.
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf
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.
(Thanks to skeptigirl at forums.randi.org for those last five.)
I’ll leave it there, but Roland appears to be a minority voice at best.
Guffman:
Just a couple of comments. Unless you have some evidence that the Catholic News Service is producing demonstrably false information, then yes, more does need to be said.
Re: “Interesting that Roland had his own publication and couldn’t manage to get a condom story into it….”
Innuendo does not strengthen your case.
Re: your citations regarding condoms and their effectiveness. I note that the authorities you cite admit that condoms are only about 85 percent effective, with a “seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with a condom.
Now, this sounds very good, and certainly using a condom reduces the absolute risk at each encounter, but 85 percent is not 100 percent, and if you’re one of the 0.9 that experiences a condom failure along with infection, condoms turn out to be utterly useless to you.
The important consideration for the Pope in this calculus is that he believes, as do I, that condom-only programs encourage promiscuous sexual behavior by providing a false sense of security, just as the introduction of the Pill resulted in massive increases in teenage sexual activity. The Uganda experience, as compared with Botswana, demonstrates clearly that the most effective AIDS control scheme is a multi-pronged approach that puts a lot of focus on responsible sexual behavior, and less focus on giving people the impression that condoms are infallible.
Of course the NIH and WHO are going to tout condoms, it’s their idea, and abstinence, chastity and monogamy programs suffer from the “not invented here” syndrome at the WHO. But, they are changing their tune, and their most recent recommendations do recognize the benefits of changing sexual behaviors in the culture as a way of reducing AIDS infection.
It remains true that the very best way not to get AIDS is not to have sex with an infected person. Any program that advances the cause of preventing the spread of AIDS should, from a moral standpoint, be lauded and supported, no matter what its source. To do otherwise is to sentence people to an ugly death out of political or ideological pique.
Seth,
“Re: ‘Interesting that Roland had his own publication and couldn’t manage to get a condom story into it….’ Innuendo does not strengthen your case”: That isn’t innuendo, that’s fact. That’s why I posted the link to the journal’s search page.
“Unless you have some evidence that the Catholic News Service is producing demonstrably false information, then yes, more does need to be said”: That WAS innuendo on my part, so I apologize. I will be plain: I do not expect fair and balanced reporting on condom issues from an arm of a church that has demonized condoms for decades. I don’t think most reasonable readers would, either.
“…85 percent is not 100 percent, and if you’re one of the 0.9 that experiences a condom failure along with infection, condoms turn out to be utterly useless to you”: Seat belts don’t save lives 100 percent of the time, so we shouldn’t bother with them, eh? Show me ANYONE (other than bloggers) who claims condoms are 100 percent effective.
“The important consideration for the Pope in this calculus is that he believes, as do I, that condom-only programs encourage promiscuous sexual behavior by providing a false sense of security…”:If all we were doing was a Berlin Airlift-style air drop of cases of condoms with no discussion of safe sex BEHAVIOR, that would be a problem, yes. Condoms without behavior modification aren’t good enough. Behavior modification without condoms isn’t good enough.
“Any program that advances the cause of preventing the spread of AIDS should, from a moral standpoint, be lauded and supported, no matter what its source. To do otherwise is to sentence people to an ugly death out of political or ideological pique”: By actively undermining confidence in our most effective technology for stopping the spread of AIDS because his ideology tells him to, the Pope is doing exactly that.
“The Pope did not make a false scientific statement. It is a scientific fact that a combined program of chastity, abstinence, monogamy, and condom availability has succeeded in reducing AIDS rates in Uganda dramatically”: The Pope didn’t say that. He said condoms increase the problem, which can only be solved by a two-pronged process of spiritual renewal of human sexuality and a spirit of friendship toward those who are suffering. He said nothing about Uganda, and he specifically didn’t include condom availability in his “combined program,” because, of course, condom use is still intrinsically evil in the eyes of the Church.
The Holy See’s transcript of the full interview can be found here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090317_africa-interview_en.html
(At this writing, the transcript does not show Fr. Lombari’s editing of the Pope’s words.)
If you know of anyone who thinks reduction of risky sexual behavior ISN’T part of a rational plan to reduce AIDS, please share. The point, and the problem, is that only the Catholic Church thinks condoms aren’t part of such a plan.
Mr. Roy:
The issue of condom size is neither a fiction nor an amusement. It is a problem that, as I stated in the article, was reported by the International Conference on AIDS. As for “educated users,” even in the U.S. people have to be taught how to properly apply a condom and it is not unusual for it to be done improperly, resulting in decreased protection and breakage. Even the WHO knows that it is necessary to instruct people on proper condom use.
Furthermore, the reference to “ideal conditions” relates to the proper storage of condoms. Both heat and pressure can damage latex condoms, so it is necessary to instruct users on things like not compressing them in a wallet and not using old condoms which may have deteriorated. Conditions of heat in Africa are, as most know, somewhat more severe than they are in the U.S.
A position statement from the WHO issued March 18, 2009 said, “To ensure safety and efficacy, condoms must be manufactured to the highest international standards. They must be procured according to the
quality assurance procedures established by the WHO, UNFPA and UNAIDS and they should be stored away from direct heat sources. Prevention programmes need to ensure that high-quality condoms are accessible to those who need them, when they need them, and that people have the knowledge and skills to use them correctly.”
As to the statistics reported, they are reported by the World Health Organization, and unless you have evidence that the statistics are incorrect, I see no reason to presume that the difference between 5 percent rate in Uganda, which is 45 percent Catholic, and 24 percent rate in Botswana, which is 5 percent Catholic, is insignificant.
I have corrected the 30 percent figure I used originally to reflect the most recent 2007 figures from the WHO, and I had improperly referenced it to Kenya, which has a currently estimated rate around 8 percent.
The WHO position statement confirms my thesis: “Recent analysis of the AIDS epidemic in Uganda has confirmed that increased condom use, in conjunction with delay in age of first sexual intercourse and reduction of sexual partners was an important factor in the decline of HIV prevalence in the 1990s”
Dr. Edward C. Green, the Director of the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project and Senior Research Scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health and Center for Population and Development Studies has written a book on the subject of the Uganda experience titled “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries.”
Interviewed by the BBC’s William Crawley on March 29, 2009, Dr. Green said this:
“…I am part of a group of researchers that have been looking for the behavioural antecedents to HIV prevalence decline in Africa. We now see HIV going down in about 8 or 9 countries in Africa and in every case we see a decrease in the proportion of men and women who report having more than one sex partner in the past year. So when the Pope said that the answer really lies in monogamy and martial faithfulness, that’s exactly what we found empirically.
William Crawley: What’s the evidence that you are appealing to that condom distribution has made things worse in Africa?
Edward Green: Because we have for a number of years now found the wrong kind of association between condom-availability and levels of condom use.. You see the wrong kind of relationship with HIV prevalence. Instead of seeing this associated with lower HIV infection rates, it’s actually associated with higher HIV infection rates. Part of that is because the people using condoms are the people who are having risky sex. It’s just like there is more bed nets in use in countries with malaria than in countries without such high levels of malaria.
William Crawley: So it would be a mistake to draw any causal connection between an increase in the use of condoms and an increase in HIV prevalence. That would be a mistake, wouldn’t it?
Edward Green: We don’t have any proof. The closest thing we have are some prospective studies that follow the same populations. There was one where–Norman Hurst of the University of California was one of the authors, it was published in the journal Aids–where they followed two groups of young people in Uganda, and the group that had the intensive condom promotion–and they were provided condoms after three years–they actually were found to have a greater number of sex partners. So that cancels out the risk reduction that the technology of condoms ought to provide. That’s the phenomenon known as risk compensation.”
The entire transcript of the interview can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/aids_expert_who_defended_the_p.html
As for your characterization of Pope Benedict as a “German philosopher devoid of any scientific expertise based on past education and experience, it might interest readers to know that he holds numerous degrees in philosophy, theology, English literature, and mathematics. He is hardly a dunce in scientific matters and is as capable of reading Dr. Green’s work and examining the facts of the situation in Uganda as anybody else.
I myself discovered the truth about Uganda before the Pope made his statements, and that he, as the head of the Catholic church should choose to comment upon the facts does not render the truth any less true.
Regarding the actual facts involved, your argument about human nature and the idea that abstinence, monogamy are an “unrealistic premise” is simply proven to be entirely mistaken by the Uganda experience.
Were the Pope suggesting that abstinence and monogamy might be useful in decreasing the transmission of HIV without any empirical proof, you might have a point, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The science has been done and the results are pretty clear, if not scientifically conclusive. It is possible to modify human sexual behavior in ways that reduce the spread of AIDS, even in developing nations like Uganda, and combined with other anti-AIDS measures, like condoms, the reductions can be significant.
The WHO position statement referenced above goes on to state, “Condoms are a key component of combination prevention strategies individuals can choose at different times in their lives to reduce their risks of sexual exposure to HIV. These include delay of sexual initiation, abstinence, being safer by being faithful to one’s partner when both partners are uninfected and consistently faithful, reducing the
number of sexual partners, correct and consistent use of condoms, and male circumcision.”
As you can see, even the WHO agrees that sexual self-control is a valuable component of reducing AIDS exposure.
What I find most interesting is the predilection of people who are biased against the Catholic message of chastity, sexual restraint, and fidelity in marriage to argue their position based on a hedonistic presumption that human beings are sexually compulsive and unable to control their sexual drives, which is simply not the case.
Most often, a society’s sexual excesses are directly related to the decline in moral structure of the society, not an irresistible sexual impulse. But it seems that suggesting that “free love” hedonism is not, perhaps, a wise social model in places where HIV/AIDS is rampant is somehow viewed as religious oppression.
In this case, it’s a happy coincidence that the Christian population of Uganda is 85 percent, and that the Catholic population is 45 percent, compared to Botswana, which is about 5 percent Catholic, which provides the opportunity for proof-of-concept that chastity, monogamy and sexual self-control, along with other technological procedures like condoms, is a very effective way of reducing the spread of AIDS.
This lends substantial support to the notion that religion, and in particular Catholicism, has a good deal of social value, and that religion is a strong motivator of useful and beneficial social behavior.
It’s not popular to suggest that religion has an important place in society these days, particularly in the largely secular mainstream press, but religion exists because it has significant social value, and in the fight against AIDS, the Catholic church has been at the forefront of the battle since the epidemic began, when Catholic priests and nuns were ministering to AIDS patients worldwide at a time when panic and hysteria had even physicians refusing to treat them.
~
There are several pro-Papal statements presented in this essay that will surely make it a candidate for publication in the Catholic Digest and related Catholic publications but on a personal level, I must take issue to some elements of the content and its related ideology.
First, is the issue of Africans’ penis sizes and the supposed incompatibility of condoms to those enormous penises, reading that statement made me laugh aloud wondering in part the writer’s expertise in the matter of penis sizes in the African continent and was surprised based on the use of that logic that his expertise in the matter did not include the incompatibility of condoms with the purported diminutive penis sizes of the Asians that would effectively have the same negative results in their application if there was any validity to the claim. Penis envy aside, I fail to see why this issue was brought out, compounded by the supposition that African males are too dumb to properly use the condoms, a process that a blind person can effectively perform without any assistance, as anyone that has used same can attest to.
Second, as it applies to the statistics reported by the various nations as to the rise or the diminishment of Aids/HIV cases, those should be approached with more than a bit of skepticism for as we well know those statistics are most often unreliable specifically in the African continent that suffers from lack of and inept infrastructures to accurately monitor, and tabulate those cases. Adding to that deficiency, is the element of national pride and potential economic impact that leads and led countries such as China, Russia, Thailand and others to claim to the world that Aids and HIV cases were non-existent in their countries until the epidemic consequences could no longer be ignored.
Third, the claim that the Lancet’s reaction to the German Pope’s position on condoms is “a significant anti-religious bias” may reflect the ideological/religious beliefs of the writer but in my opinion was nothing more than a qualified scientifically based counterpoint to the words of a German philosopher devoid of any scientific expertise based on past education and experience.
Non-debatable, of course are the conclusions that celibacy and abstinence can preclude any sexually related afflictions and diseases but realities regarding normal sexual human needs, related pleasures and propagation makes that premise unrealistic at best for most normal humans and while “Father Federico Lombari, obliged as he was to rectify the Pope’s quote as having said that there was a “risk that condoms…might increase the problem,” that “after the fact” spin does not in my opinion eliminate the ideological idiocy of claiming that the use of condom does or might increase the problem. That premise in my view is similar in its absurdity to that of Indian males and others that believe that the impregnation of 11 and 12 years old virgins will prevent the spread of Aids/HIV.