Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

32,000 pin holes per condom

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 22 Jan 2005 23:34 GMT
The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the
following :

A condom is made of rubber (latex), a hydrocarbon compound with
polymerization, which means that it is fibrous and porous like woven
cloth. By means of an electronic microscope the pores of the condom can be
seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the
HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron. When the condom is stretched
the pores of the condom are 10 times as wide as that of the virus; in
other words, the virus can go through the wall of the condom. The condom
was designed for family planning (to strain sperm, not viruses); and a
condom is not meant for fornication/prostitution.

Research carried out in the U.S. on 89 condoms in circulation on the
market proved that 29 out of 89 leaked, which means that the leakage was
about 30 %. In Indonesia condoms imported from Hong Kong in 1996 were
withdrawn from market because 50 % leaked. In practice in the field there
is often failure of condoms use for family planning because of leakage,
let alone for fornication/prostitution. As a comparison, sperm are as
large as oranges and viruses as large as a period (dot).

Another examination conducted in the U.S. ( the Physical Division of Human
Sciences, Maryland, USA, 1992) showed that particles as minute as viruses
can be detected going through the wall of condoms.
In every condom there are 0.4 % pinhole, microscopic defect in the
manufacturing process. The area of the condom is 80 cm2 and if you count
32,000 pinhole in each condom, and if each pinhole is 1/1000 micron, you
can imagine the total number of pinholes in a condom.

Based on the above finding, the anti-AIDS campaign in the U.S. no longer
uses the Safe Sex Use Condoms slogan, but just the reverse (a turn of
180o),

At the same time an expert of the University of Utah, Professor Victor
Cline, state in 1995 that if we believe that by using condoms we are
protected from sexually transmitted diseases including the HIV/AIDS virus,
we really have gone astray.
GMCarter - 23 Jan 2005 11:14 GMT
>The condom itself is not 100 % safe.

Nothing is. Victor Cline, whoever he is, simply is wrong. Pinholes
don't matter. You can blow AIR into a condom. It may slowly leak out
some after a couple hours. Does a guy stay inside a person with a
condom on after ejaculating for a couple hours?

How big is an air molecule?

How big is HIV? Or seminal fluid constituents?

Surface tension?

These concepts are all apparently still alien to you. And tho you
regurgitate this mess of crap again, it remains that condoms can
vastly reduce the risk of passing HIV infection and other STDs.

        George M. Carter
Brian Mailman - 23 Jan 2005 21:14 GMT
> Nothing is. Victor Cline, whoever he is, simply is wrong. Pinholes
> don't matter. You can blow AIR into a condom.

Onto is bettter.

B/
PaulKing - 24 Jan 2005 00:02 GMT
Models of STD transmission

Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by
governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.

Even if the models used to test condoms are reasonable indicators of
whether a condom will break during sex, and thus whether they will
function adequately in preventing sperm from reaching the female's
reproductive system, but they may be rather poor indicators of whether a
microscopic pathogen can pass from one partner to the other.

For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but
this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses
and
even of the bacterium Chylamidia.

Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we
find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models
don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded
by
a condom.

That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms
as
barriers to infectious disease.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: -

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
GMCarter - 24 Jan 2005 09:46 GMT
>Models of STD transmission
snip...>
>READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: -
>
>http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html

An article that sounds like it comes from some erudite course.
Actually, if you read a bit into it, one comes across: "We might think
of these as 'dickless' tests, but this is of course not a term that
you’ll hear used by professionals"...

That is persuasive!

But see
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/

Basically, this is just some bigoted a.shole's poorly written homework
assignment. Probably some braindead frat jock trying to justify
f.cking without a condom, like Paul does.

        George M. Carter
PaulKing - 24 Jan 2005 00:01 GMT
WRONG AGAIN CARTER: -

Home > Health > AIDS > University of T...
Search!
     My Preferences
    Email to a friend
    Bookmark Post    Log Out
Latest [ Topics | Posts ]    Archive    Post A New Topic    Post a Reply
<< Topic    < Post    Post 1 of 4 Topic 2514 of 2545    Post >    Topic >>
University of Texas on condom testing
by "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> Jan 20, 2005 at 05:48 AM

Models of STD transmission

Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by
governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.

Even if the models used to test condoms are reasonable indicators of
whether a condom will break during sex, and thus whether they will
function adequately in preventing sperm from reaching the female's
reproductive system, but they may be rather poor indicators of whether a
microscopic pathogen can pass from one partner to the other.

For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but
this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses
and
even of the bacterium Chylamidia.

Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we
find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models
don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded
by
a condom.

That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms
as
barriers to infectious disease.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: -

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
GMCarter - 24 Jan 2005 09:47 GMT
>WRONG AGAIN CARTER: -
>snip
>University of Texas on condom testing
>by "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> Jan 20, 2005 at 05:48 AM
>
>Models of STD transmission

Oh! lol. I shoulda known. This is YOUR homework assignment.

That is NOT the position of the U of Texas but a student opinion
piece.

Based on the way you frame arguments based on flawed interpretations
of data and outright fraud in "creating" data, I trust your professor
saw through and gave it an F. Unless of course he was merely grading
you on your ability to be a sophist.

        George M. Carter
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 25 Jan 2005 15:23 GMT
>The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the
>following :
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the
>HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron.

The virus is actually about 1/10 micron.

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4625da386ae4a7d2e756287c1f7e827c%40localhos
t.talkabouthealthnetwork.com
>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a92add0fd0c013d477dbd3df32b5df83%40localhos
t.talkabouthealthnetwork.com
>

This has been pointed out to you before.

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=chbfus%24uuv%241%40rumours.uwaterloo.ca>

When you repeat a mistake that has been shown to be a mistake, it
becomes a lie.

Signature

David Canzi

Let Us Carry Out the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung's Instructions for National Reunification - 27 Jan 2005 07:05 GMT
"David Canzi -- non-mailable address" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> wrote...
>>The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the
>>following :
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> When you repeat a mistake that has been shown to be a mistake, it
> becomes a lie.

And I don't think he's demonstrated that the "holes" in latex condoms
actually go through the material completely uninterrupted.  In other
words, while there may be "holes" in the latex, none of them goes
directly from one side to another, so that even if a viral particle
entered into one of them, it would never make it through the entire
membrane.  Just my opinion, though one supported by the fact that
virtually everyone who FAITHFULLY uses latex condoms does not
contract the HIV virus.

I've questioned PaulKing's sanity before.  He is very unstable, and
his recent crusade against condoms suggest he may be an agent of
the Catholic cult.  It is the most logical explanation, as his
agenda seems to be to get people to quit worrying about the HIV
virus (it is harmless) and stop using condoms to prevent
infection (condoms fail to stop HIV transmission, even though it
is a harmless virus, therefore condoms are evil).  Since we are
dealing with a religious ideology, it does not appear to make
sense to us, but is perfectly logical to someone indoctrinated
in Catholicism which teaches that all contraception is a sin.

If I am right, PaulKing does not give a flying f.ck about the
spread of HIV, he simply wishes to dissuade people from using
condoms and thus ensure a steady supply of new Church members,
even if they are born HIV+ (not that the Church will pay for
their medical treatment).
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.