 |
 | 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 2005Paul King's continued lies
When this guy doesn't provide a link, there's usually a good reason. Two "quotes" from Mr King. ***** 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. The NIH panel concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" that condoms protect against STDs. ***** The actual original wording 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 percent effective in helping prevent the spread of HIV, they offer less protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes. While finding that latex condoms can be effective in preventing the spread of HIV and in protecting men from contracting gonorrhea from a female partner, the NIH panel concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" that condoms protect against other STDs. ****** What was wrong with the extra words Paul? Too uncomfortable for you? You're a lying little sh.t. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,30376,00.html Bennett I excluded this politically correct nonsense as it is so stupid that ignoring it is all one can do. Even a five year old can see that if a condom cannot stop a bacterial std it is quite impossible for it to block something hundreds of times smaller. It is like saying the cat door is too small for a mouse to get through but the cat can pass through it with no trouble. INSANE. QUITE INSANE! I have read most of the 138 studies reviewed by the FDA and the majority DID NOT SAY CONDOMS WERE PROTECTION AGAINST HIV. This nonsense was written into the FDA report for political reasons an deserves to be ignored. 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." >Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size >(a micron is a millionth of a metre). How big is a molecule of water? > Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size > (a micron is a millionth of a metre). Wait just one minute Paul, you site above that "Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size" yet you have claimed repeatedly in other posts that HIV has never been isolated and never been photographed via Electron microscopy. Which statement is the truth and which is a lie Paul? Gary Stein 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." >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." How big is a molecule of air? 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 >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. How big is a water molecule? 5 mm??? 6 mm????? gosh Micrometer you fool, not millimeter >Micrometer you fool, not millimeter What? >For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm... or do you mean a molecule of water is 5 micrometers in size?? What??? "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message > For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, The Daisy BB is 5 mms. Are you both really so stupid. The measurement is micrometers NOT millimeters. I don't know why I waste time even replying to such stupid people. Even a retard would know the University of Texas is not talking about millimeters in this context. >Are you both really so stupid. The measurement is micrometers NOT >millimeters. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Even a retard would know the University of Texas is not talking about >millimeters in this context. A water molecule is 5 mu-m?? Gosh. What is surface tension? What could it mean??? It's when water molecules get close enough to the surface to be worried about evaporating away. "Oh no, I'm floatiiiinnnngggg......." Maybe Paul thinks that hydrogen-bonds are some kind of investment. :o) Bennett >It's when water molecules get close enough to the surface to be worried >about evaporating away. > >"Oh no, I'm floatiiiinnnngggg......." > >Maybe Paul thinks that hydrogen-bonds are some kind of investment. ROFLMAO! Sad attempt to cover up the egg on your face. Better to have simply shut up. Perhaps you think a millimeter is a micrometer. > Perhaps you think a millimeter is a micrometer. what I think is not at hand, what you said is. I figured your omission of a clear understanding of what mm stood for would somehow be my fault. it's cool, post on. In this context it seemed clear to me that the University of Texas could not be meaning millimeters. The sloppy use of 'mm' for micrometers was there error not mine. If I had corrected it I would have been accused fof faking the post. Seems I can't win with you folks. "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message > In this context it seemed clear to me that the University of Texas could > not be meaning millimeters. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Seems I can't win with you folks. Well, I for one, wouldn't want you to go away mad. Whatever victory you are looking for, I'll concede it to you. Well then Paul, maybe you shouldn't cut and paste so much, cos it's obvious that the font change is the reason :o) Try exercising a little intelligence for a change. I'm have no doubt the point was simply to ridicule your post, not the mm/um difference. Try proof-reading next time. Bennett "I'm have no doubt the point was simply to ridicule your post, not the mm/um difference." Seems it backfired! |
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.