Do Condoms Protect Against Small Viruses?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

PaulKing - 10 Jul 2005 22:20 GMT

Do Condoms Protect Against Small Viruses?

The use of condoms is widely recommended to prevent sexually transmitted
diseases, including those caused by such viruses as herpes simplex,
hepatitis B, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The efficacy of condoms in these circumstances, however, is unknown. The
water-leak test used to ensure the integrity of condoms can detect holes
as small as 3 to 4 m in diameter, but sexually transmitted viruses are
much smaller, with diameters of 0.04 to 0.15 m. A previous study
demonstrated that about one third of condoms tested allowed penetration of
HIV-sized polystyrene spheres.

Reply to this Message

Chris Noble - 11 Jul 2005 01:23 GMT

Once again Paul King posts the same crap again after it has been
debunked.

" Thus, even
for the few condoms that do allow virus penetration, the typical level

of exposure to semen would be several orders of magnitude lower than
for no condom at all. "

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.health.aids/msg/895934422405455d?hl=en&

Chris Noble

Reply to this Message

DavidT - 11 Jul 2005 17:05 GMT

Chris, your final comment on that thread is well worth repeating.......

"Condoms are also not 100% effective in preventing the penetration of
oxygen. Try putting one over your head and seeing how long you can
breathe for. Actually, a single case would be regarded as anecdotal.
Get all of your Denialist friends to take part in this trial, that is
if you can find a significant number."

Reply to this Message

PaulKing - 12 Jul 2005 21:30 GMT

What a silly post. The amount of oxygen need to sustain a human being
compared to transmission of a 'virus'.

***** Stars for idiot post of the month.

Reply to this Message

GMCarter - 12 Jul 2005 21:58 GMT

>What a silly post. The amount of oxygen need to sustain a human being
>compared to transmission of a 'virus'.
>
>***** Stars for idiot post of the month.

I see you've been trying it again. Obviously, you have had the condom
on your head long enough to suffer more brain damage but not so long
as to be completely asphyxiated....

Reply to this Message

Chris Noble - 13 Jul 2005 00:46 GMT

> What a silly post. The amount of oxygen need to sustain a human being
> compared to transmission of a 'virus'.
>
> ***** Stars for idiot post of the month.

You seemed to have avoided mentioning that your "citation" did not
support your claim.

The example of the condom over the head also highlights the logical
fallacy that you use in your argument. It is a type of false dichotomy.

You want us to believe that a condom has to be 100% impermeable to
virus particles in order to be effective in reducing the transmission
of HIV.

No condom is 100% impermeable to oxygen molecules or HIV particles.
Nevertheless, they reduce the amount of oxgyen by several orders of
magnitude. Enough to make breathing impossible. Try it.

Likewise, an infectious dose of HIV is necessary for ... infection.
Clearly only a very small percentage of HIV virus particles could ever
pass through a condom. Most stay with the rest of the semen. A
reduction of several orders of magnitude is enough to reduce the
probability of transmission by several orders of magnitude.

Nobody has ever claimed that condoms are 100% effective. That is not
the point - unless you are a no-brained Denialist who prefers attacking
his own strawmen.

Chris Noble

Reply to this Message