Pope to Africa: Don't use condoms

[Daecon]

Link to your sources?

[Sayonara]

I like the way that HIV can get through the "small holes" even though water molecules can't. It must be very crafty.

[max.yevs]

lol sayonara, nice sarcasm.

 

but i agree fully, its way too viscous; maybe one or two molecules on the surfaces of the drops get through

 

but theres another consideration- who has the hiv, man or woman? given that hiv almost always spreads to the receiving partner, we guys have nothing to worry about.

 

in fact chances of getting hiv for a man are at most .065%, .5% for a woman.

Edited March 29, 2009 by max.yevs

[mooeypoo]

but theres another consideration- who has the hiv, man or woman? given that hiv almost always spreads to the receiving partner,

In order for the "recieving partner" to recieve anything, the "giving partner" needs to be infected.

 

we guys have nothing to worry about.

 

in fact chances of getting hiv for a man are at most .065%, .5% for a woman.

Are you seriously suggesting men should not worry about HIV?

 

 

Addition: BTW, it seems like your statistics might only be true in theory. Take a look here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/tab1a.htm (United Nations statistical data):

Take a look at the ratio - anything that is over 100 is getting close to a 1:1 ratio (because they're counting the ratio as number of women per 100 men). That's quite a lot of deviation from your statistics in reality, isn't it.

 

There's no doubt women are infected more "easily" (because the sexual contact is inside the body rather than outside, which increases the infection risk factor) but that is NOT to say that "you men have nothing to worry about". Seriously...

Edited March 29, 2009 by mooeypoo

[John Cuthber]

I'd still like to see the sources for that assertion.

[mooeypoo]

I'd still like to see the sources for that assertion.

Which one of the assertions?

[Daecon]

I'm guessing Post #25?

[max.yevs]

Are you seriously suggesting men should not worry about HIV?...

Take a look at the ratio - anything that is over 100 is getting close to a 1:1 ratio (because they're counting the ratio as number of women per 100 men).

 

All those men are homosexual! I meant straight guys!

[mooeypoo]

All those men are homosexual! I meant straight guys!

Are you for real?

 

Those men are not homosexual. The thought that only homosexual men are subject to HIV infection has gone off this world 20 years ago. Did you look at the statistics I posted?

 

You nitpick through answers to relate only to what is comfortable for you to answer - that is NOT part of a decent debate, and is against the rules. Also, dismissing points you don't want to be real offhand is fallacious, to say the least, and is not helping your points at all.

 

For that matter, you stated that women recieve the virus -- recieve from who? From men? How did those men get it in the first place? And if they "give it" to women, they are not homosexuals.

 

This is the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty I've seen in a while, and when it's done in a talk about such a hazardous disease as HIV, I am not sure that what you're claiming is any better than what the pope claimed with his ridiculous "it goes through the holes" nontheory.

[max.yevs]

yeah, i looked at your statistics, and as for post #33, i kind of said it as a joke... but its more than a valid point...without going into the details, here's a site. Its also the perfect explanation as to why my first set of statisticts (post#28) disagrees with yours (post#29)

 

but no matter what you say, i still think that HIV doesn't get through the holes in latex on any significant scale.

Edited March 30, 2009 by max.yevs

[CharonY]

Why for friggen's sake do you believe that heterosexual men do not get infected by HIV? Even though women are more likely to be infected by infectious men than vice versa the risk does not go down to zero. That kind of ignorance is dangerous. Same goes to condoms. They are at the moment the only serious means of protection from STD (beside abstinence, of course).

[mooeypoo]

yeah, i looked at your statistics, and as for post #33, i kind of said it as a joke... but it does have a valid point they're more than 4 times more likely to get HIV...without going into the details, here's a site. Its also the perfect explanation as to why my first set of statisticts (post#28) disagrees with yours (post#29)

You answer was idiotic and not funny, not in this context and not in any other. We are talking about a serious disease with serious implications. It is also entirely out of subject.

 

in fact, as far as that goes, sorry for post #28. I assumed women as receptive and counted out homosexual men.

You did a whole lot more than that, and I recommend you go and do some serious research on HIV and AIDS, specially seeing your next gem -

 

where do women get it in the first place? I think it originated in monkeys or something like that.

Stop assuming and start reading. Your assumptions lead you nowhere, and they lead this thread away from the original topic it was talking about.

 

Stick to the topic, please, and avoid giving opinions on things that can result in people's death.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, he's not exactly a pillar of consistency and rationality.

 

 

I found humor in this... The pope is right now, in Africa, speaking out against superstition.

 

ROTFL.

 

Incidentally, I recall a study showed that Christians are less likely to be superstitious (other than Christianity itself) than atheists. I don't know whether this is a side effect of Christianity opposing things like the horoscope, or if it is because people have a limited amount of supernatural they are willing to accept.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm just wondering what his rationale is. I could actually see if he thought that recreational sex is inherently immoral and therefore can't be encouraged no matter what the tangible cost. (I'd think it was stupid, but I couldn't really argue with a moral judgement.) But that's not what he's saying, right? He's saying his way is pragmatically preferable, as well, and that's an objective statement. Presumably he thinks that 1) the only way to reverse the spread of AIDS is if everyone is sexually monogamous for life 2) this is a realistic goal, and 3) the availability of other methods like birth control can only delay it. Presumably he also has no empirical evidence for any of these things (since none exists), which is a shame, since it's contrary to the Catholic Church's recent (more recent than Galileo) policy of not directly challenging science on objective reality. For example, they acknowledge the fact of evolution, and consider creationism a "pagan belief."

 

Well, the Pope definitely considers promiscuity immoral and is correct that it also increases the rate of transmission of STDs. Abstinence/monogamy nearly guarantee no transmission for couples that practice that, but of course not everyone will.

 

He also cites a study stating that condoms have 10-15% technical inefficacy against AIDS due to some viruses passing through the condom -- though I suspect that more modern condoms are far better than that, but then there is also the near certainty of misuse. Additionally, he complains that many programs lie/exaggerate the safety of condoms. This would not surprise me, since I heard that many Africans were already opposed to condoms, so that they would need some "encouragement" to use them.

 

Didn't read all of it, but it seems mostly reasonable. Better than what I would expect from the President of the US in any case

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html

[iNow]

Incidentally, I recall a study showed that Christians are less likely to be superstitious (other than Christianity itself) than atheists.

 

It's amazing what you can show with your data when you completely remove the central part of someones worldview. Seriously... That's a bit like saying that alcoholics drink less alcohol than infants when you remove all alcoholic beverages from being considered in your data set.

 

 

It's funny what you can show when you simply restrict the definition of "superstition" in such a way as to exclude religious belief.

[cameron marical]

i got my info for post 25 from my biology professuer.

[iNow]

i got my info for post 25 from my biology professuer.

 

Then either:

 

1) He is an idiot teaching his student lies and falsehoods

2) You misinterpreted his position and are misrepresenting it here

3) Some combination of both

[mooeypoo]

no. its not.

 

now im not defending any religions, but i know that wearing a condom doesnt do squat to preventing hiv. in latex there is small holes, wich increase in size once stretched. these holes are small enough to stop any spermatoid cells from slipping through, but hiv is much smaller than sperm. hiv can slip through. wearing condoms dont increase the chance of hiv at al, and saying that was quite stupid, but they dont do much on preventing it either.

 

as for the rest of the article. i agree with most of you guys, it is essentially popularity suicide to do what he did. yet it was for a good cause, just the totally wrong action.

Take a look at these, Cameron:

 

• http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf
  
• http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr58e324a1.htm?s_cid=rr58e324a1_e (see "Preventing Exposure")
  
• http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm
  
• http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
  
• http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040817143856-95300.pdf
  
• http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010720.html
  
• http://www.williams.edu/admin/health/ephnotes/notes074.html
  
• http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std4.shtml
  
• http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/caa750bda8432f84cc25702000720012?OpenDocument
  
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8217474?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
  

So what you are essentially saying is that all the scientific data we have -- all the research material, the statistics, the experimental durability data, the drop in HIV infections since using Condom and the rise in HIV infections in places where unsafe sex is customary, aaaallll this is false. Just because.

 

 

Interesting form of logic, wouldn't you say?

 

In other words, Cameron, you are in dire need of presenting evidence for your claim. Saying that your professor stated this is not evidence.

 

~moo

[Mr Skeptic]

[*]http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

 

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.

 

This is pretty much what the Pope said (see link I shared earlier), except that I think that the Pope is saying that condoms encourage risky behavior and lifestyles counteracting the increased protection of using the condom. Given the likeliness of poor uneducated Africans not using condoms both consistently and effectively, it is likely IMO that their effectiveness would not be nearly as high as in rich and well educated countries. Interesting that the CDC largely agrees with the Pope.

[mooeypoo]

The pope says that Condoms are entirely unhelpful in preventing HIV, and that the virus can go through tiny holes in the latex. That's bull.

 

What the CDC is saying is that while Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection, they're not perfect. As is anything. Condoms, however, are *much much more efficient* in preventing HIV than unsafe-sex.

 

Abstinence is "the best" solution to prevent any STD, that much is true, but Abstinence is not working. People have sex, even within the church. The attempt to educate kids to aboid having sex until after the wedding is a huge failure. So given the options between unsafe sex and use condoms, using condoms is - by far - a better option.

 

The people in Africa do not abstain. They just don't, look at the numbers. Given that fact, they should *not* be discouraged from using condoms. They should not be lied to, either, by saying that condoms are inefficient. Condoms are efficient, they're just not PERFECT.

 

Nothing is perfect.

 

 

And about all those "Abstinence Only" education programs, read this: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf (specifically, go to page 17):

2. HIV Risk Behaviors

Curricula also distort information on HIV exposure risks.

One curriculum presents data on HIV exposure in a misleading and confusing

way. The curriculum uses data from a CDC chart originally titled “HIV infection

cases in adolescents and adults under age 25, by sex and exposure category.”94

The original CDC chart looks at all people with HIV under 25 and categorizes them by reported route of exposure, such as heterosexual sex or intravenous drug

use. But the curriculum misleadingly puts the CDC data in a new chart called

“Percent HIV Infected” and scrambles the CDC data in a way that suggests

greatly exaggerated HIV rates among teenagers. For example, where the CDC

chart showed that 41% of female teens with HIV reportedly acquired it through

heterosexual contact, the curriculum’s chart suggests that 41% of heterosexual

female teens have HIV. 95 It similarly implies that 50% of homosexual male teens

have HIV.96

 

~moo

[cameron marical]

Originally Posted by cameron marical

i got my info for post 25 from my biology professuer.

Then either:

 

1) He is an idiot teaching his student lies and falsehoods

2) You misinterpreted his position and are misrepresenting it here

3) Some combination of both

______________

iNow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

~~~ Pale Blue Dot ~~~

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition."

~C. Sagan

Joined Aug 2007 | 6,336 posts | Location: Earth - Milky Way - Virgo Supercluster

Rep Power: 15 | Reputation: (say thanks for this post)

 

 

iNow

View Public Profile

Send a private message to iNow

Find all posts by iNow

Add iNow to Your Contacts

 

mooeypoo (OMG, Pwnies!) Today, 07:52 PM #42

 

ModeratorOriginally Posted by cameron marical

no. its not.

 

now im not defending any religions, but i know that wearing a condom doesnt do squat to preventing hiv. in latex there is small holes, wich increase in size once stretched. these holes are small enough to stop any spermatoid cells from slipping through, but hiv is much smaller than sperm. hiv can slip through. wearing condoms dont increase the chance of hiv at al, and saying that was quite stupid, but they dont do much on preventing it either.

 

as for the rest of the article. i agree with most of you guys, it is essentially popularity suicide to do what he did. yet it was for a good cause, just the totally wrong action.

Take a look at these, Cameron:

 

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/orga...ndomReport.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...d=rr58e324a1_e (see "Preventing Exposure")

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

http://oversight.house.gov/documents...3856-95300.pdf

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010720.html

http://www.williams.edu/admin/health.../notes074.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std4.shtml

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/caa...2?OpenDocument

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum

So what you are essentially saying is that all the scientific data we have -- all the research material, the statistics, the experimental durability data, the drop in HIV infections since using Condom and the rise in HIV infections in places where unsafe sex is customary, aaaallll this is false. Just because.

 

 

Interesting form of logic, wouldn't you say?

 

In other words, Cameron, you are in dire need of presenting evidence for your claim. Saying that your professor stated this is not evidence.

 

 

ahh! damn, stop the feeding frenzy, i give up. jeez.

 

my professuer lectured us the other day that people should be aware of this{what i talked about}, i was just saying what he said. im not trying to say anyone is wrong, i just thought i was right, and that all of you knew what i was talking about already. i didnt even think about water moleculed being smaller than hiv, it never really occured. i guess im gulible when it comes to him teaching me stuff. i kind of like the guy, ill belive what he says and not even think twice about it.

i plan to ask him about it tomorow.

 

so tell the vultures to stop pecking, my bad.

[mooeypoo]

ahh! damn, stop the feeding frenzy, i give up. jeez.

It's not about giving up, it's about presenting correct data. Whoever was the professor who told you that was distorting scientific information.

 

Quite frankly, if he lectures teenagers against using condoms, he should be fired.

 

my professuer lectured us the other day that people should be aware of this{what i talked about}, i was just saying what he said. im not trying to say anyone is wrong, i just thought i was right, and that all of you knew what i was talking about already. i didnt even think about water moleculed being smaller than hiv, it never really occured. i guess im gulible when it comes to him teaching me stuff. i kind of like the guy, ill belive what he says and not even think twice about it.

i plan to ask him about it tomorow.

You shouldn't just believe anything your professor says. You shouldn't just believe anything anyone just says -- you should research things for yourself. Look at the scientific data, look at the numbers, it's very clear in this case: Condoms are very useful in reducing the chances of HIV infection.

 

so tell the vultures to stop pecking.

I didn't plan on being a vulture, but you can't really expect posting such a statement and not get opposition on it. This wasn't meant as a personal attack, it was meant as a clarification on what the data ACTUALLY says.

 

~moo

[cameron marical]

he didnt really say not to use them, he just said that they dont help against hiv much.

 

but your right, i should have looked at experiments and data. my bad.

[iNow]

he didnt really say not to use them, he just said that they dont help against hiv much.

But, as repeatedly demonstrated already with supporting evidence and citations, that TOO is plainly false. Come on, cameron. You've proven yourself to be smarter than this. We're not attacking you, we're just somewhat disappointed since you've repeatedly proven yourself to be a bright and curious human being with your great contributions here at SFN.

 

Please actually click the links people have shared with you and read through them... for your benefit and ours. That's a fair request, right? We don't supply those links because we think they make our posts look pretty... We supply them because they clarify the confusion you are demonstrating, and we want to help you learn.

 

It is plain that condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection SIGNIFICANTLY. Case closed. The Pope is a bloody moron and should be treated as such, especially on all issues related to biology and reality.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You shouldn't just believe anything your professor says. You shouldn't just believe anything anyone just says -- you should research things for yourself.

Unless, of course, I'm the one saying it. That's an important exception to note.

Edited March 30, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[cameron marical]

But, as repeatedly demonstrated already with supporting evidence and citations, that TOO is plainly false. Come on, cameron. You've proven yourself to be smarter than this. We're not attacking you, we're just somewhat disappointed since you've repeatedly proven yourself to be a bright and curious human being with your great contributions here at SFN.

 

Please actually click the links people have shared with you and read through them... for your benefit and ours. That's a fair request, right? We don't supply those links because we think they make our posts look pretty... We supply them because they clarify the confusion you are demonstrating, and we want to help you learn.

 

It is plain that condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection SIGNIFICANTLY. Case closed. The Pope is a bloody moron and should be treated as such, especially on all issues related to biology and reality.

 

no, i believe you guys, and i have looked at a couple of those links, and your right, hes wrong. and, actually, i asked him about it earlier and he still stuck with the idea that he was right. he said that water does get past the latex, it just takes a while. but that still says that if it takes a while then the holes are pretty small, and way too small for hiv to get past it, but i didnt push it, because my question was in front of the class and he was getting angry. eek.

[Mr Skeptic]

The pope says that Condoms are entirely unhelpful in preventing HIV, and that the virus can go through tiny holes in the latex. That's bull.

 

Source? This seems to be contradicted by the source I gave from the Vatican.

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html