Skip to comments.Condoms are perfectly safe....
Posted on 06/05/2005 2:34:10 AM PDT by David Lane
....unless you could be the type of person to be concerned about trifles like cancer, death from inhalation problems and the odd birth defect (to name a few).
Latex is a natural rubber or is not in the slightest elastic (high modulus) until it undergoes a process called vulcanization.
This requires a large number of additives. Latex even in its natural form has proteins known to cause allergic reactions (Types I, II and IV -fatal).
The additives in vulcanization include: -
Benzene - Short term exposure to benzene may cause irritation to the nose, throat and lungs. It can also affect the nervous system, causing headaches, dizziness and slurred speech. At high levels of inhalation shallow breathing and death can result. Death has occurred after exposure to 20.000ppm for five to ten minutes or 7.500ppm for 30 minutes. Skin irritation, including redness and blistering can occur with skin contact. It is also absorbed very slowly through the skin. Long term exposure to this substance -- even at low concentrations -- can cause a number of symptoms including appetite loss, nausea, fatigue, headaches and dizziness. Mild anemia has been reported after exposure to 25ppm for several years and 100ppm for three months. At levels of 100ppm and 200ppm for periods of six months, or more, severe irreversible blood changes and damage to the liver and heart can occur. Benzene is a known carcinogen and it has been linked to increased risk of several forms of leukemia. In May 1977 the National Institute of Occupation Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended that the TLV for benzene be reduced from 10ppm to 1ppm because of its carcinogenicity. NIOSH recommended that exposure to benzene be kept as low as possible and that the use of benzene as a solvent or dilutent in open operations should be prohibited. This standard of 1ppm was legally challenged by industry groups and never enforced. Although some rubber companies said they expected to meet the 1ppm recommendation, the established TLV remains at l0ppm. Sampling in rubber plants reveals that the level of benzene in the air is generally slightly greater than the NIOSH recommended standard of 1ppm. Researchers investigating solvent use in the rubber industry found that in order to maintain benzene vapour below 1ppm, mixtures of solvents could not contain greater than 0.1% benzene.
Toluene - This solvent, which is the major substitute for benzene, cannot be considered a completely safe alternative even though it has not been proven to be carcinogenic. The harmf ul effects of toluene include irritation of eyes, respiratory tract (nose, throat, lungs) and skin. Repeated or prolonged contact with the liquid can cause removal of all the natural oils from the skin resulting in dry, cracked skin. When splashed in the eyes, it can cause irritation and reversible damage. Acute exposure above the TLV of 100ppm can result in central nervous system depressions with symptoms including headache, dizziness, fatigue and muscular weakness as well as drowsiness and incoordination.
Thiazoles - Cause dermatitis reactions. 2-mercaptobenzothiozole is said to be especially irritating to the skin, eyes and respiratory tract.
Dithiocarbamates - Have been shown to be irritating to the skin, eyes and respiratory organs. Possible carcinogens.
Nitrosamines (N-nitrosodiphenylamine) Many nitrosamines are potent carcinogens but until recently this nitrosamine used as a retarder was not considered harmful. Recent experiments with rats indicted N-nitrosodiphenylam ine as a cause of cancer in the test animals. This substance also combines with other rubber chemicals to form other nitrosamines especially N-nitrosomorpholne which is linked with liver and respiratory cancer and kidney tumours.
In addittion almost all condoms have some type of lubricant such as carcinogenic talc or silicone (almost identical to that used in breast implants). Some even use the highly lethal N9 as a lubricant and spermicide.
If that was not enough in order to cause the vulcanized latex to gel on the former a coagulant is required. These salts are all highly toxic and not water soluable so the crystals remain embeded in the inner surface of the condom.
Condoms, cause for concern? You decide. It's your life after all.
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.
Are there any products natural or man made that are perfectly safe? Everything I use in my daily life has an element of risk, however slight. I am drinking my morning coffee after a breakfast of bacon, eggs and toast. I am consuming caffeine with my coffee. I consumed Nitrites and nitrates with the bacon. Evil eggs contain cholesterol. The bread I toasted was store bought, not home made so it contained preservatives. I even put butter on the Toast. Guess I just like to live dangerously.
Everything we use is a tradeoff between the benefits and hazards. Nothing I can think of is perfectly safe.
I agree but the question is how great is the risk.
Condoms are used internally and rubbed into soft moist tissue.
No other product on the market (cigs. included) has anything like as many FDA listed toxins, carcinogens and teratogens.
The exact number is different for every brand but none have under ONE HUNDRED.
Condoms contain two of the most powerful carcinogens know to man AND two potent teratogens (cause birth defects).
The law (Calif) requires a warning label for products containing carcinogens but the condom manufacturers have refused to comply and no legal action has been taken.
This is criminal in the strict sense of the word.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE
May 28, 2004
Potent Carcinogen found in Most Condoms
Recent study has discovered the presence of a very potent carcinogen in most condoms. Small amounts of this chemical are released whenever condoms are used.
Nobody knows whether this is serious yet however it is not likely to be healthy to expose the reproductive organs to cancer-causing substances on a regular basis.
This is a potentially serious issue for much of the world's population that cannot afford or access other forms of birth control. I hope further studies will follow on this soon.
Could this be related to the rise in cancer in women, and men as well?
Study Says Condoms Contain Cancer-Causing Substance. Reuters ^ | Fri May 28,12:09 PM ET
The Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart said on Friday it had found the carcinogen N-Nitrosamine in 29 of 32 types of condoms it tested in simulated conditions.
The condoms, which were kept in a solution with artificial sweat, exuded huge amounts of cancer-causing N-Nitrosamine from its rubber coating. Researchers measured amounts of N-Nitrosamine, that were way above the prescribed limits for other rubber products such as baby pacifiers.
"N-Nitrosamine is one of the most carcinogenic substances," the study's authors said. "There is a pressing need for manufacturers to tackle this problem."
ONE MORE EXAMPLE
(Used by most condom manufacturers - The alternative is talc which is also a listed carcinogen)
Cornstarch has been reported to cause inflammation (endophthalmalitis) of the eye after cataract surgery which can result in blindness.
In abdominal surgery, the dust causes adhesions (thin, string-like bands of tissue) to form which can lead to intense pain and bowel obstruction requiring additional surgeries.
The use of powdered gloves in gynecological exams can lead to fibrosis of the reproductive tract, a cause of infertility in women. Cornstarch deposited in the mouth after tooth extraction can lead to the growth of tumor-like nodules beneath the gums.
Why is the deadly dust present in the first place? And what's the alternative?
Cornstarch is added during the manufacturing process of medical gloves to ease the removal of the product from the porcelain hand-shaped molds (formers) on which the gloves are shaped through coagulant or straight dipping. The powder makes the glove surface more slippery and the gloves easier to don.
Powder-free gloves have been available since 1982. These are coated with a gel (similar to that on some contact lenses) or passed through a chlorine wash to make the surface more slippery
Extract from : - DeadlyDust.com
BENZENE AND TOLUENE - Used in huge quantities in condoms and both FDA listed carcinogens.
* Other chemicals are under investigation. In one 2000 study, workers in a rubber factory who were chronically exposed to hydrocarbons (ethylbenzene, *benzene, *toluene, and *xylene) had lower than average sperm count and sperm qualities.
Another 1999 study suggested that men whose work exposes them to aromatic solvents used in paints, varnishes, glues, and metal degreasers and other products may be at risk of reduced fertility.
In addition to the effect on fertility, some researchers believe overexposure to chemicals may also contribute to testicular cancers. In fact, a 2000 study concluded that there was a link between sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer.
Among the study participants, men in couples with fertility problems were more likely to develop testicular cancer. In addition, low semen concentration, poor sperm motility, and abnormal sperm morphology were all associated with increased risk for testicular cancer.
WHY NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THIS FROM THE LIBERAL PRO CONDOM LOBBY?
DO CONDOMS ACTUALLY CAUSE CANCER - Well yes.
"Is Screening for Anal Cancer Warranted in Homosexual Men?"
Sexual Health (09.04) Vol. 1; No. 3: P. 137-140::Jonathan StC. Anderson; Claire Vajdic; Andrew E. Grulich
Anal cancer is at least 20 times more common in homosexual men than in heterosexual men.
LATEX - FIFTH LARGEST CAUSE OF ASTHMA
(but this is never mentioned by the mass media)
Allergy to the proteins in natural rubber latex is the fifth largest occupational cause of asthma. Raising this issue is important because for many people once sensitised, their lives are a misery and they have to give up work.
Sandra Caldwell chaired the Asthma workshop where the keynote speaker was Hans Horst Konkolewsky, Director of the European Safety and Health Agency, in Bilbao, Spain.
Notes to Editors:
1. This years European Week for Safety and Health runs from October 13 to 18. It was launched by Department of Work and Pensions Minister, Des Browne, MP, who has responsibility for health and safety, and Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC). Bud Hudspith, a Trade Union Council nominee on the HSCs Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances demonstrated e-COSHH Essentials at the launch. Aleks Kinay, Chair of the Latex Allergy Support Group, described her own experiences of latex allergy and occupational asthma. Her personal case study is available. More information is also available on Alison Dugmore, a nurse who is now virtually housebound by her allergy.
THE FDA SAYS ONLY 1% OF LATEX DEATHS ARE REPORTED
Delayed contact dermatitis from chemicals in rubber has been recognized since the 1930s.4 But except for rare early reports, clinicians did not appreciate systemic allergic reactions to latex proteins until 1979, when case reports began to appear in Europe. 5
Latex allergy erupted in the United States shortly after the Centers for Disease Control introduced universal precautions in 1987. By late 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 1133 reports of serious allergic reactions and anaphylaxis occurring to patients and health care staff associated with 30 classes of latex medical devices.
There were 15 patient deaths associated with latex barium enema catheters.5,6
The FDA estimated that the reports represented only 1% of actual occurrences.6
Today, researchers hypothesize that the latex allergy outbreak is the result of multiple factors including deficiencies in manufacturing processes, increased latex exposure, hand care practices, immunological cross reactivity, and changes in latex agricultural practices.1,7,8, 45
Latex allergy affects between 8%-12% of workers in all health disciplines. Latex allergy also affects up to 51% of children with spina bifida, and approximately 1% (to 6% - This article incorrectly quotes the OSHA estimate which read '1% to 6%') of the general population.
I agree but the question is how great is the risk.
Carcinogens present in almost all latex products
Date: 7/1/2003 1
It is not widely known through the regular consumer channels that the vast majority if not all latex products are manufactured in a method that adds nitrosamines to the product. Nitrosamines are widely known to be carinogenic in nature.
The latex industry has known that there are nitrosamines present in their products, but have never warned their customers.
Additionally, there is now available methods to manufacturing latex gloves, condoms etc. that is free of nitrosamines. This process is economical and ready to be implemented.
The latex product industry has never been proactive in their research and development to protect their customers from harm.
Are there any medical studies that have examined whether there is a causal relationship between the increase cases of cervical caner and the increased usage of condoms?
Anal cancer is at least 20 times more common in homosexual men than in heterosexual men.
"As with all products, there are risks in this case very slight"
I cannot agree having studied the issue in depth and been involved in High Polymer Lattice research.
An increase in gay men of 2,000% in anal cancers indicates a similar figure in heterosexuals.
Latex deaths based on the 1% reported are now running in the thousands and one can only guess at long term deaths from cancers and related birth defects.
This is A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM dispite the fact it is getting little media exposure. There are other far safer forms of birth control.Condoms are bad news and should be banned.
I AM NOT ALONE IN SAYING THIS
A Move To Banish Latex Products
June 28, 2000
BOSTON (Boston Globe) Josephine Pandolfo's illness began three years ago as a slight rash on her hands, accompanied by chronic sinus headaches. But it progressively got worse.
There were days when Pandolfo, a dentist, had difficulty breathing. Her tongue would swell and she couldn't swallow. Then, she almost lost her life after going into anaphylactic shock, an often fatal allergic reaction, at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
Finally, a test confirmed it: Pandolfo had developed a severe reaction to latex, the rubber that is found in everyday products from surgical gloves to baby's pacifiers.
Pandolfo is one of an estimated 18 million Americans, or 6 percent of the population, who have latex sensitivity. The allergy has been responsible for at least 21 deaths nationwide since 1989, 16 as the result of an allergy to the latex in barium enema tips, a product no longer on the market.
Now, in one of the strongest moves ever taken against latex in New England, Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse is calling on hospitals, restaurants and manufacturers to discontinue using latex gloves. He has written a resolution recommending that the state health department regulate the use of latex in the health-care, food-service and day-care industries.
"I think the big message is to get the word out," Whitehouse said. "Particularly in the food-service and day-care industries, there is no need for the (latex) products. It's a little difficult in health care where the alternatives have to meet the standards of latex gloves."
Whitehouse has met with Allegiance Healthcare Corp., a latex gloves manufacturer, to encourage them to provide more non-latex products and bring awareness about the allergy to the general population.
"It's a particularly difficult allergy because it's so hard (for consumers) to find out if latex is in a product or not," he said. "Therefore, the risk of exposure to latex is very high. You don't really know if you are going to be exposed."
The natural, milky substance, made from the rubber tree Hevea brasiliensis, is used in 40,000 products, including items such as balloons, diaphragms, condoms, and even mouse pads. Of these 40,000 latex-containing products, 300 are medical items.
Ironically, the federal government greatly increased the use of latex in 1987, when new regulations required all health care workers to wear latex gloves to prevent the spread of the HIV-virus. That year, Americans used 2 billion pairs of gloves for medical purposes. Today, the number is estimated to be around 20 billion.
Along with the increase in latex use, the number of people with an allergy to the natural rubber has dramatically risen. The Food and Drug Administration reports that between January 1985 and March 1999, there were five deaths from allergies to latex gloves and 2,330 allergic reactions.
"Unfortunately, we see a significant increase (of allergic reactions) because of the increased use of latex gloves," said Jim Brady, a disability lawyer. Brady has represented more nurses with latex allergies than any other lawyer in New England. "I think, among many people, there's no awareness of the problem with latex gloves."
An allergic response generally triggers a poison-ivy-like rash 12 to 36 hours after contact. While this is not life-threatening, some people may have a reaction to the latex protein itself. A full-blown allergic response often affects the skin and other organs, producing hives, swelling, asthma and, in extreme cases, anaphylactic shock.
Pandolfo has had reactions to food prepared by people wearing latex gloves, latex powder residue left on a table at the doctor's office, and, once, to a water glass that was handled by a girl wearing the gloves.
"I don't go out to eat anywhere unless I've talked to the chef first," Pandolfo said. "This is life-threatening."
When she travels, she telephones the hotel ahead of time to talk with the chef. She brings her own food on an airplane. And she only uses self-adhesive stamps.
"I can't lick a stamp. I can't lick an envelope," she said. "(Latex) is out there everywhere, and you can just die."
Among the people who are most at risk are health-care workers. The American Academy of Family Physicians estimates that between 10 and 17 percent of these workers, which include nurses, dentists and surgeons, are at risk for latex reactions. Children with spina bifida, a disabling birth defect, people exposed to products containing latex, and those who have hay fever or other allergies are also at risk.
While many hospitals have voluntarily changed to non-latex products, some health care facilities have been reluctant to discontinue its use. A majority of restaurants, day-care centers and beauty salons continue to use latex, unaware that they are messing with a deadly allergen.
"For the places that haven't changed over, education hasn't gotten out to the degree that it needs to," said Gail Lenehen, editor for the Journal of the Emergency Nurses Association. Lenehen went into anaphlyactic shock three years ago while working in the emergency room of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. "They haven't reached the average nurse, physician or hairstylist."
In 1997, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health recommended that non-latex gloves be used for all activities that are not likely to involve contact with infectious materials, such as food preparation, routine housekeeping and maintenance. That same year, the Food and Drug Administration established rules for labeling all medical devices that contain latex.
But still, said Whitehouse, who has been working on this campaign since January 1999, progress is slow. While some Rhode Island restaurants have volunteered to change to non-latex on their own, many are still using the allergenic material.
While there are a number of non-latex products available, including gloves made of vinyl or polyvinyl chloride, nitrile or other synthetics, many hospitals are slow to change because of the additional cost.
"It's money," Brady said. "The vinyl gloves are not as cheap as latex gloves. The latex gloves are very accessible, very easy."
Brady said, however, that the health-care industry is under the false impression that latex gloves are always less expensive. He said a growing number of non-latex gloves are just as good and priced competitively with latex.
"The pro-active actions that need to be taken, which are to eliminate latex gloves, are very doable, but there is tremendous reluctance at the facilities," said Evelyn Bain, associate director of occupational safety and health for the Massachusetts Nurses Association. "It doesn't make sense not to do it."
Copyright 2000 The Boston Globe. All rights reserved.
"Better they should contract AIDS? "
Even if you believe in 'AIDS' you cannot be so ill informed as to think condoms can protect against a virus HUNDREDS of times smaller than it's lattice structure, can you?
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.
I guess since I wear latex gloves every day all day means I should have dropped dead by now. Plus there's the fact that I handle neurotoxins and mutagens every day. . . I don't really consider the use of latex in condoms a health risk.
EVERY STUDY SHOWS CONDOMS TO BE NO PROTECTION
FAILURES OF THE MEMBRANE OF THE CONDOM
1) Permeability of the latex membrane for microparticles, STD agents and HIV
In 1977 D.Barlow v advanced the hypothesis of the existence of some pores in the latex membrane of a condom in order to explain why this did not appear to protect against non-gonococcal urethrites and genital infections with Condylomata acuminata.
This hypothesis has been revived in order to account for HIV infections acquired during
sexual intercourse "protected" by use of a condomvi.
S.G.Arnold et al. (1988) vii have examined latex gloves from four manufacturers using scanning electron microscopy and X-ray analysis.
They found that all of the gloves had pits 3-15µm wide and up to 30µm deep on both interior and exterior surfaces. Irregular particles (30-50µm) containing silicon and magnesium were embedded in the latex deeply enough to cause pits themselves.
1 Pontifical Council for the Family, Rome. Current adress: 18 via della Traspontina, Roma, 00193, Italy.
2 English translation by D.E.Parry from the revised original article « Le "sexe sûr" et le préservatif face au défi du Sida», Medicina e Morale, n°4, 1997, pp.689-726.
2 sections of all gloves showed cavities throughout the matrix and tortuous channels
(5µm) penetrating the entire thickness of the glove.
Such irregularities in latex membrane surface and structure do not seem to be encountered in condoms, at least when they are new, and have not been exposed to heat, oxygen, or ozone. However, under scanning electron microscopy, the surface of a latex condom membrane is not uniformly smooth: it appears made of smooth areas separated by puckers and dimples scattered across the specimen (viii). There are hollows and irregular projections on this surface, with irregular, dense inclusions (ix).
Although numerous pores are visible in scanning electron microscopy of natural condoms (x,) no
evidence of breaks, fissures or pores have yet been reported in the few published
transmission electron microscope studies of latex condoms (xi).
Some authorities have concluded that latex membranes of condoms, despite their nonhomogeneous structure and the irregularity of their surface, could be considered free of microscopic pores, of a size down to that of the smaller virus.
However, these results have been put in question.
First, as Rosenzweig et al.(xviii) say it, all the aboved mentioned electron microscopic studies of condoms have been "predominantly anecdotal".
These later authors, in their own study of thirty samples from fifteen non-lubricated Trojan condoms, did find that a large proportion of these samples have visible surface abnormalities, with only 30% of all condoms tested completely free of detectable defects under all magnifications. 50% of the samples revealed a surface abnormality interpreted as either cracking, melting or both.
Second, in vitro studies about the grade of impermeability of condoms membranes to microorganisms, using a condom plunged into a culture medium, are few, and limited to small sample sizes.
Confidence intervals constructed around reported failure rates indicate that "true" permeability rates could be quite high, and
new data suggest that some condom do leak HIV and that leakage is not necessarily
related to whether or not they are made of late (xxix).
Moreover, experience with STDs shows the need for prudence in extrapolating results obtained in vitro to situations in (vivoxx).
Third, optimism about condoms membrane integrity has been shaken after closely controlled condoms, coming from known manufacturers, had shown a permeability to microspheres of greater size than that of HIV (6 condoms out of 69)xxi.
Carey et al.(xxii) observed the passage of polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm diameter (HIV diameter is from 90nm to 130 nm) across 33% of the membranes of the latex condoms which they studied (29 over 89 nonlubricated latex condoms).
More recently, Lytle et al., while criticizing the "exaggerated conditions" of the in vitro, polystyrene microspheres test carried out by Carey et al., found that 2,6% (12 of 470) of the latex condoms did allow some virus penetration, with no difference between lubricated and nonlubricated condoms (xxiii).
It has been said that since HIV in semen is associated with white blood cells (and, may be, also with spermatozoa) and since neither spermatozoa nor white cells can pass through these very small hypothetic "pores" in the latex, then HIV itself cannot
pass. So these "pores", even if they do exist, could not therefore be of such importance.
But this is deceptive. In fact HIV is present in sperm in two forms: associated with white blood cells and as free virus particles (xxiv); And C.J.Miller et al. have demonstrated that cell-free virus preparations are capable of producing HIV infection by the genital route xxv.
Given their size, such free viruses from semen could transit through the smallest defect of the membrane of a condom and reach, in the organism of the sexual partnerxxvi, CD4 in Langerhans, lymphocytes and macrophages cells.
They may also potentiate indirectly the infectivity of HIV-1 in semen, regardless of HIV-1 source (xxvii).
"I guess since I wear latex gloves every day all day means I should have dropped dead by now. "
You are lucky (so far). Thirteen per cent of all American medical works don't share your luck.
P.S. Millions of people still smoke and many don't die of cancer but does that mean cigs., don't cause cancer?
In fact, STD reinfection rate increased even among females after this instruction (using condoms).
A study made in a genitourinary clinic in London (Evans et al. 1995)lxxii showed that an increase in the use of condoms from 1982 to 1992 from 4% to 21% did not have an effect on the number of viral STDs observed during this same period.
The same authors found that increasing condom use with regular partners correlated with decreasing incidence of gonorrhea, chlamydial infections, and trichomoniasis in women having regular partners, but did not show that trend with non-regular partners.
Moreover, condom use was ineffective in the prevention of non-gonococcal urethritis, candidosis, genital herpes and genital wartslxxiii.
J.M.Zenilman et al. (1995) lxxiv, studying the self-reported use of condoms, and the occuring sexually transmitted diseases in a cohort from a high-risk population, comprising 323 males and 275 female, found, surprisingly, that 15% of the men who
were "always" condom users had incident STDs, compared with 15.3% of the "never users"; 25.5% of the women who were "always" users had incident STDs, compared with 26.8% of "never" users.
If we now consider the efficiency of the condom when used as a prophylactic against STDs, we find a significant failure rate which appears roughly inversely
proportional to the size of the pathogenic agent lxvi.
N.J.Fiumaralxvii reckons that the condom, which is in theory useful against STDs, is, in practice, inefficient. J.Pemberton et al. (1972)lxviii, while examining 2,093 STD cases diagnosed in Belfast found a lower percentage of syphilis and gonorrhea among
condom users, but a higher proportion of non-gonococcal urethrites and idiopathic STDs.
STUDY ACTUALLY SHOWS AN INCREASE OF 'AIDS' WITH CONDOM USE (Two other studies have had similar results)
"a paradoxal increased risk of seroconversion proportional to condom use"
The few statistics illustrating the effect of condoms use on HIV transmission in homosexual acts do not give clear cut results.
R.Detels (1989)lxxxix observed a 2.9% drop in seroconversion when condoms were used in homosexual intercourse, in a cohort of 2915 active homosexuals initally HIV sero-negative.
But, in that statistic, the number of partners for each member of the cohort was almost as important a factor as the use or not of a condom.
L.Levin et al. (1995)xc found that most (71%) of the 140 active-duty young men with documented sero-conversion who were identified in various US army installations did use a condom during their homosexual or heterosexual relations.
Results seemed to indicate a paradoxal increased risk of seroconversion proportional to condom use in
"Condom use did not have, within these statistics, any influence on the risk of contamination."
In 1987, Padian (xciii), having studied over one year the rate of HIV seroconversion in a group of 97 women, sexual partners of 93 HIV-infected males, found that the risk of contamination was basically a function of the number of partners and of the number of sexual acts with an infected partner (increased risk of 4.6 for more than 100 sexual acts).
Condom use did not have, within these statistics, any influence on the risk of contamination.
Jacques Suaudeau, M.D.
xciii. PADIAN N., MARQUIS L., FRANCIS D.P., ANDERSON R.E., RUTHERFORD G.W.,
O'MALLEY P.M., WINKELSTEIN W., Male-to-Female Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus,
Journal of the American Medical Association, August 14 1987, 258 (6), pp.788-790.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.