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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

I lost it when he supported Bush's torture policy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This should also help, here's the magazine with the publication of Roland's piece, 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. 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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

CDC; How Effective Are Latex Condoms in Preventing HIV?

CDC Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel: Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases

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.

This should also help, here's the magazine with the publication of Roland's piece, and yes, I said magazine, not journal:




Probably no one else thought to enter their latex or condom research in RubberWorld magazine. 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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then there is this Uganda reverses the tide of HIV/AIDS

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

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

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.

 

[clarsct]

It's ok.

AIDS has already been cured.

 

[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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

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?

 

[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). 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.