138 STUDIES ALL SHOW CONDOMS ARE USELESS

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

PaulKing - 17 Mar 2005 01:07 GMT

"The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the
National Institutes of Health, released the report compiled by the panel
of 28 experts, who analyzed about 138 published studies on the use of
condoms during penile-vaginal intercourse.
"There was a lack of evidence to help us make a definitive conclusion
about the effectiveness of condoms," said panel member Dr. Timothy
Schacker, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota"

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 17 Mar 2005 11:29 GMT

>"The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the
>National Institutes of Health, released the report compiled by the panel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>about the effectiveness of condoms," said panel member Dr. Timothy
>Schacker, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota"

This is also a complete and utter lie. The NIH report found nothing of
the sort.

See what Schacker also said:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/601_aids.html
"I hear about this all the time from patients,'' said Schacker, who
sees patients at a Minneapolis clinic. "There is this belief that the
drugs are so powerful that they can abandon safe sex practices. I am
very concerned about it, and it's safe to say that [other researchers]
are, too.''

See also
www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/medicine/radiology/Dick_Gordon_papers/Moghadas%20et%2
0al.%20(2004).pdf

George M. Carter

Reply to this Message

PaulKing - 18 Mar 2005 00:05 GMT

YES IT DID.

It received massive coverage.

Why do you lie so?

Reply to this Message

PaulKing - 18 Mar 2005 00:06 GMT

CDC Knew About Condoms' Limitations, Doctors Say

Tuesday, July 24, 2001
By Kelley Beaucar

A group of doctors Tuesday claimed that the federal government,
specifically the Centers for Disease Control, has for at least a year
suppressed a study about the effectiveness of condoms.
The doctors claim that the government has known about the limitations of
condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases but
nevertheless mounted a campaign that deliberately misrepresented the
risks
in sex education curricula and public health programs.

"The entire public health model developed by the CDC and based on the
idea
that condoms offer protection, is a lie," said Dr. Hall Wallis,
a member of consortium. "The skeleton is now out of the closet."

At a Washington, D.C., news conference, the 10,000-member Physicians
Consortium claimed that the CDC has known for years that condoms offer
little protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as
gonorrhea,
chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes.
Word of the condoms’ shortfalls came in a panel report released Friday by
the National Institutes of Health.

The NIH panel concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" that
condoms protect against STDs.

Reply to this Message

Bennett - 18 Mar 2005 04:29 GMT

Hey Paul, why not give us a URL for that citation. I know! Maybe
because IT DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR BIZARRE WORLD VIEW!

The story actually reads:

"At a Washington, D.C., news conference, the 10,000-member Physicians
Consortium claimed that the CDC has known for years that while CONDOMS
ARE 85% EFFECTIVE IN HELPING PREVENT THE SPREAD OF HIV they offer less
protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea,
chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,30376,00.html

But then as we all know, Paul King will lie his cute little behind off
to continue the spread of misinformation about HIV.

Shutting your eyes Paul only means YOU can't see the Boogy man. He can
still see you... When are you going to face the truth?

Bennett

Reply to this Message

PaulKing - 21 Mar 2005 07:23 GMT

How could condoms NOT block stds over a hundred time larger than so called
'HIV' but block 'HIV?'.

Any fool can see this statement was politically correct nonsense.

Reply to this Message

Bennett - 22 Mar 2005 04:29 GMT

How about it other STD's were transmitted through contact without
ejaculation, or if they were bacterial rather than viral? Makes sense
to me, as someone who's grown both bacteria and viruses in the lab.

No-one's claiming that HIV is as infectious as something like
gonorrhea, but equally you can't claim it's not infectious at all. Any
rebuttal to that article I quoted showing 0% HIV transmission in
consistent condom users compared to 4.8% annual rate in inconsistent
users?

I know - if you quote my article but cut the reference out IT'LL GO
AWAY!! Heheh.

Cheers

Bennett

de Vincenzi N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 11;331(6):341-6. "A
longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by
heterosexual partners. European Study Group on Heterosexual
Transmission
of HIV."

Reply to this Message