 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / March 2005Condoms can't even stop massive sperm
CONDOMS POOR EVEN AS BIRTH CONTROL Sperm is like an elephant against a house fly when compared to a virus. If they don't block an 'elephant' how could they possibly block the 'house fly?' ++++++++ Typical use effectiveness varies greatly in various studies and among groups within studies. For example, DHS data suggest pregnancy rates per 100 first-year condom users of over 16 in Egypt, almost 6 in Indonesia, and over 8 in Thailand (20). The estimated typical pregnancy rate among condom users in the US is about 14 per 100 women. This rate is higher than for most other methods (367, 537, 538). >CONDOMS POOR EVEN AS BIRTH CONTROL > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >about 14 per 100 women. This rate is higher than for most other methods >(367, 537, 538). Where published? Referring to animal-based condoms like lambskin? "first-year" condom users (in other words inexperienced users) are less unlikely to use condoms properly. They put them on too late, they don't leave room at the tip and consequently they split more easily, they pull out without taking the condom with them, causing semen spillage, etc etc etc. Properly used condoms in experienced hands have a very very good success rate at prevention of pregnancy and STDs including HIV "Properly used condoms in experienced hands" True. If you keep them in your hands they may work. Just don't put them anywhere else. Seems you have experience of a 'condom in the hand being worth two in the bush'. "Referring to animal-based condoms like lambskin?" No. To latex condoms. >"Referring to animal-based condoms like lambskin?" > >No. To latex condoms. Prove it In contrast, pregnancy rates among those not using any form of contraception are around 85 per 100. So the reduction down to 14 in the US (more like 3% with proper use) means they don't work, hmm? Daft bugger. http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/ There's a rather more informative table than Paul's tripe about halfway down. Bennett If they fail to stop sperm just imagine how useless they are stopping any virus. You are the daft bugger Bennett. Which bit about the fact they reduce the rate of pregnancy from 85% to 3% don't you understand? Can you point out where they're failing to stop sperm? Looks to me like they can prevent over 96% of the normal fertility (82/85). If you expect condoms to never tear, leak or burst you're living in a fantasy world. It says nothing about little at all about some "mesh" of latex. There's no need to imagine anything. Zero percent of condom users got AIDS in de Vincenzi's study I quoted in another thread. 4.8% of inconsistent and low-users users (low-users were 50% more likely to get HIV, but the study was too small to prove difference was significant). Looks to me like they're just as effective at preventing HIV transmission as they are sperm. Just a pity no-one pointed out the latter fact to your mother ;-) Cheers Bennett The Jones and Forrest Study indicated a 22% failure rate in stopping conception. If the condom fails to stop huge sperm that is hundreds the size of a virus it cannot possibly block any virus. How much clearer can I make it? >The Jones and Forrest Study indicated a 22% failure rate in stopping >conception. No it did not. You're lying. Show me where it says that! With a reference to the URL and supporting paper or otherwise I'll just presume you changed the text again. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.