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.