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 / April 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a tennis net."

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 17 Mar 2005 11:53 GMT
Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his
research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves
(published in Rubber World, June, 1993).

Roland said that what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among
good
scientists who have no political agenda."

Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size
(a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a
syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.

The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water
leakage
through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in
Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I'll mention the Canadian test below).
Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms
tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents
such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."

Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can
see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in
natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns."

And it's not as if governments don't know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized
particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89
condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland
says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage
rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this]
study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public
health and welfare." The federal government's standard tests, he adds,
"cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus."

Such tests
are "blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet this quantity
of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as
many as 100,000 HIV particles."
As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, "The HIV virus can go through a
condom like a bullet through a tennis net."
It's the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different
manufacturers revealed "pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns
deep."

More relevant to HIV transmission, "5 micron-wide channels,
penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves." He said
the presence of such defects in latex "is well established."
For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada
test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent
tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no
effort
to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the
condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an
"improved" 28% rate.
DavidT - 17 Mar 2005 18:50 GMT
How long are you going to peddle this utter nonsense....

Water molecules are 2000 times smaller than HIV particles, and I don't
see these leaking out of condoms like "bullets through a tennis net".
PaulKing - 17 Mar 2005 23:40 GMT
Seems the idiots at the University of Texas agree with me.

Still they are not experts on latex like you are David.

How long did you say you have been involved in latex research?

______________________

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.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
PaulKing - 18 Mar 2005 11:52 GMT
STANDARD WATER TEST

"The FDA tests every batch of imported condoms as well, though imports
account for very few condoms used in this country.

Although the smallest hole the water test can find is 100 times bigger
than the HIV virus, officials believe the water test is sufficient. "
GMCarter - 18 Mar 2005 13:44 GMT
>STANDARD WATER TEST
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Although the smallest hole the water test can find is 100 times bigger
>than the HIV virus, officials believe the water test is sufficient. "

Say what?
Written where? By whom?
Surface tension?
PaulKing - 21 Mar 2005 03:22 GMT
FDA
GMCarter - 21 Mar 2005 11:52 GMT
GMCarter - 18 Mar 2005 13:43 GMT
>Seems the idiots at the University of Texas agree with me.

No, they don't.
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Table.of.contents.html

This course is about critical thinking, a feature you lack.

The chapter you cite is part of a methodology that is to be evaluated
by students for its ability to reflect a scientific model. Here, they
note the limitations of testing of condoms, but they do NOT suggest
that they play no role in preventing disease.

And indeed, the next chapter is about the epidemiology and
transmission rates:
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/HIV/Text.html

Wow. Mark. Are you like the stealth anti-denialist who is out there to
make all denialists look bad?? Not that they need any help, but I
think if I was a denialist, I'd NOT want you on my team.

        George M. Carter
PaulKing - 21 Mar 2005 03:23 GMT
" Here, they
note the limitations of testing of condoms"

End of story no matter how much you wriggle and squerm.
PaulKing - 11 Apr 2005 10:13 GMT
New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and
effectiveness of condoms (telling partly the truth -ed)

The wording of information about condoms on the site is also potentially
misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes usually
only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure.

The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only “moderate”
protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, “less” protection against
Chlamidya, herpes and human papilloma virus, and that the ability of
condoms to protect against syphilis “has not been well studied.” Although
these claims are backed by reference to studies looking at the
effectiveness of condoms, they do not acknowledge that the studies were,
almost exclusively, conducted in populations with a high prevalence, or
risk of sexually transmitted infections.

____

The rest of the article (attacking the new semi honest official statements
on condoms) is a pathetic attempt to defend condoms citing the one and
only study (if you can call it that) conducted over twelve years ago that
claimed that condoms reduced 'AIDS' in the 132 couples studied. As usual
the 'conclusions' section of that report which said 'in real world use
condoms failed up to 32% of the time' was ignored.

This study has been contradicted by ALL the 400 subsequent studies almost
without exception.
 
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.