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.

20% of all condoms faulty - FDA

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 22 Jan 2005 23:36 GMT
The FDA began inspecting manufacturing plants and warehouses after sending
a letter April 7 to all U.S. condom suppliers urging them to be
"particularly vigilant" in quality assurance in view of the "urgency"
posed by the AIDS epidemic and sexually transmitted disease fears.

In testing done between early April and Aug. 10, the FDA said, 41 of 204
sample batches of condoms were "violative" of minimum government
standards.
Eleven of 106 American-made condom batches flunked, along with 30 of 98
imported ones, in a test that consisted of filling a condom with water and
examining it for leaks. A total of almost 51,000 condoms was tested, and a
batch failed if four or more condoms in it leaked.

The agency could not say how many individual condoms failed, but the
inspection design indicated a minimum failure of about one condom out of
every 50.
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 24 Jan 2005 12:14 GMT
>... the FDA said, 41 of 204
>sample batches of condoms were "violative" of minimum government
>standards.  ... A total of almost 51,000 condoms was tested, and a
>batch failed if four or more condoms in it leaked.

51000 condoms/204 batches = 250 condoms/batch.  So 4/250 (1/60th)
or more condoms failed in 1/5th of the batches, and 3/250 (1/80th)
or less failed in the other 4/5ths of the batches.

Your subject line "20% of all condoms faulty - FDA" is so far from
being justified it must be considered not just dishonest, but
profoundly dishonest.

Signature

David Canzi

GMCarter - 24 Jan 2005 22:50 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:14:01 +0000 (UTC),
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable address)
wrote:

snip...>
>Your subject line "20% of all condoms faulty - FDA" is so far from
>being justified it must be considered not just dishonest, but
>profoundly dishonest.

Why David, it almost sounds like yer callin him a "lier"!
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 29 Jan 2005 19:16 GMT
>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:14:01 +0000 (UTC),
>dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable address)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Why David, it almost sounds like yer callin him a "lier"!

Yeah.  One difference between him and me is this:  When I call him a
liar, I make the accusation more convincing by showing the evidence.
When he calls me a lier, he makes the accusation more convincing BY
TYPING IT ALL IN CAPS.

Signature

David Canzi


Rate this thread:






 
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.