GIVE IT UP CARTER - You know the truth on this point: -
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
______
Another examination conducted in the U.S. ( the Physical Division of Human
Sciences, Maryland, USA, 1992) showed that particles as minute as viruses
can be detected going through the wall of condoms.
In every condom there are 0.4 % pinhole, microscopic defect in the
manufacturing process. The area of the condom is 80 cm2 and if you count
32,000 pinhole in each condom, and if each pinhole is 1/1000 micron, you
can imagine the total number of pinholes in a condom.
________
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 - 08 May 2005 11:24 GMT
>GIVE IT UP CARTER - You know the truth on this point: -
Yes. And the truth is that condoms will reduce the risk of numerous
infections, most importantly HIV.
And I know the truth that the tests for HIV are excellent diagnostic
indicators and do a better job at it than many other diagnostic tests.
You seem to think that we live in some robot world of utter precise
perfection--maybe in Springtime for Hitler or some fantasy fascist
world. The real world of medicine and diagnosis is -- oh dear, Bush
will hate this-- nuanced.
But with HIV tests, the chances of a false positive are pretty low.
And they can be checked against the reality of CD4 counts and other
clinical indicators.
Because there are a tiny number of false positives or (even fewer)
false negatives in HIV tests certainly no more means that HIV exists
or doesn't cause AIDS than a false TB test result means that TB
doesn't exist or cause AIDS, or similarly with syphilis (even harder
to accurately diagnose serologically)...etc.
I know, Paul, that you're repeating lies and spamming the same
articles and misinterpretations over and over doesn't change any of
that.
I know HIV doesn't care.
And I know not to bother reading what you post as you have been shown
to outright alter documents to change their meaning to suit your
delusions.
George M. Carter
PaulKing - 09 May 2005 07:09 GMT