Doubts About Condoms

[ironmonk]

When will the left learn? (more can be read about condoms at [url="http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html)"]http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html)[/url]


[b]Doubts About Condoms[/b]
Science Questioning Their Efficacy in Halting HIV/AIDS

NAIROBI, Kenya, JUNE 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- The Catholic Church has long been criticized for opposing condom promotion as part of AIDS prevention programs and "safe sex" campaigns. Yet opposition to condoms does not mean the Church does not care about AIDS. Last year Kenya's health minister, Charity Ngilu, praised the Church for its role in fighting HIV and AIDS, the Catholic Information Service for Africa reported Aug. 17.

Ngilu commended the Catholic Church for its focus in three key areas: prevention through awareness-raising and promotion of behavior change; care and treatment of the people living with HIV/AIDS; and social and economic support for those infected and affected by the scourge.

And recently published information is showing the wisdom of the Church's refusal to back condoms. The journal Studies in Family Planning in its March issue published a wide-ranging review of scientific literature on the subject of condoms.

Authored by Norman Hearst, a professor at the University of California, and Sanny Chen, an epidemiologist with the San Francisco Department of Health, the article "Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?" notes that "Measuring condom efficacy is nearly impossible." A commonly accepted figure for their efficacy is 90%, the article affirms.

But this is not enough for condoms to be effective in AIDS prevention. For example, the articles notes: "In many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use." The authors admit that "no clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion."

Uganda's noted success in reducing the prevalence of AIDS was due a program that focused on delaying sexual activity among adolescents, promoting abstinence, encouraging faithfulness to a single partner, and condom use. Condom promotion was last in order of importance, notes the article.

Hearst and Chen explain that increased use of condoms was not responsible for the decline in AIDS among Ugandans. "The main cause of falling incidence in Uganda was a substantial drop in numbers of casual sex partners," they wrote. Their article also attributes falling HIV prevalence among pregnant women in parts of Zambia and Tanzania to reductions in numbers of sexual partners.

In another article, a group of experts on HIV stressed the need for greater emphasis in changing sexual behavior. "It seems obvious," said an article in the April 10 issue of the British Medical Journal, "but there would be no global AIDS pandemic were it not for multiple sexual partnerships." The article was entitled "Partner reduction is crucial for balanced 'ABC' approach to HIV prevention."

The authors explained that a high number of sexual partners is "a crucial determinant in the spread of sexually transmitted infections." As well, HIV transmission is facilitated by the presence of other sexual infections, which in turn are propagated by having multiple partners.

The article also notes that while condoms were credited for Thailand's reduction in the high levels of HIV infection, their use was also accompanied "by a striking reduction" in the numbers of sexual partners.

Regarding the campaign in Uganda, the authors state that it is difficult to prove a direct causal link between the promotion of monogamy and the fall in HIV rates, though "it seems likely that it was critical to the success."

The article observed that, despite the evidence of how partner reduction and monogamy can reduce the spread of HIV, many programs give these means little attention. "We believe it is imperative to begin including (and rigorously evaluating) messages about mutual fidelity and partner reduction in ongoing activities to change sexual behavior," the authors commented.

Not so safe

Doubts have also been cast on the reliance of condoms for "safe sex" programs. In the United States more than 15 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur every year, according to Dr. Joe McIlhaney Jr., president of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, a nonprofit organization based in Austin, Texas.

Writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last Aug. 25, [b]McIlhaney noted that the consequences of relying on condoms can be grave. One widely prevalent STD, the human papillomavirus (HPV), causes more than 90% of cervical cancer which, in 2001, killed an estimated 4,100 women in the United States. [/b]

"Based on the science and the science alone, there is only one conclusion: Condoms do not make sex safe enough," McIlhaney commented. "While condoms can reduce [b]some [/b]risk, they still often [b]leave individuals vulnerable to STD infection[/b]."

His arguments received support in a report to the U.S. Congress by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier this year. The centers' director, Dr. Julie Gerberding, said that the best way to avoid HPV "is by having only one uninfected partner," the Washington Times reported Feb. 3.

The report recommended that men and women not in monogamous relationships should reduce the number of sexual partners. The report also noted that most studies show that condoms do not prevent the spread of HPV.

Strangely silent

Abstinence promotion even received support in a long article published June 13 in the New York Times Magazine. Written by Helen Epstein, a visiting research scholar at the Center for Health and Wellbeing at Princeton University, it observed that many efforts aimed at stopping the spread of HIV have had disappointing results.

Epstein explained that ignoring the need to promote fidelity in sexual relations "may well have undermined efforts to fight the epidemic." She noted: "Government planning documents, United Nations agency reports, AIDS awareness campaigns and AIDS education curriculums are strangely silent on the subject."

A case in point is the situation in Botswana. The Washington Times on June 17 described how Tsetsele Fantan, leader of the African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnerships, sponsored by pharmaceutical giant Merck & Company and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, felt embarrassed on taking a visitor to a primary school, whose walls had posters about using condoms and whose children sang songs about prophylactics.

"At that age, they should have been singing about 'saying no to sex,'" said Fantan. "The message should have been about abstinence. We need to focus our message better."

Kgomotso Ntsatsi, who directs the Christian AIDS Intervention Program that promotes abstinence, explained that she needs more financial support to get that message out, the article reported. "Condoms were the first thing people thought of. People never stopped to see if it was working," she said. "It eroded our culture terribly. Condoms brought so much unfaithfulness and so much early pregnancy. Now it looks like everyone is promiscuous."

In fact, there are signs that more governments are waking up to the need to promote abstinence. Recently, Zambia banned the distribution of condoms in schools, BBC reported March 15. [b]Education Minister Andrew Mulenga explained that condoms were encouraging young people to have premarital sex[/b]. Some 120,000 Zambians die from AIDS each year, according to U.N. figures.

BBC quoted Mulenga as saying that students "should be advised to abstain from sex as a measure to fight the disease instead of being urged to use condoms which promote immorality."

[b]The Catholic Church's opposition to condoms is not based on medical studies. Rather, it stems from a profound analysis of the need to integrate sexuality in an exclusive and permanent relationship open to life in the context of marriage. The wisdom of this view is becoming increasingly clearer.[/b]

[Lil Red]

great article!!!!!

[Carrie]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Jul 8 2004, 02:53 PM'] great article!!!!! [/quote]
agreed!

[Crusader_4]

Awesome Article...where did you get it?

[Guest JeffCR07]

awesome article, props to ironmonk!

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

The problem is that people ignore how something that may be very effective in one instance won't be extremely effective in the long term. Even if a condom were 99% effective at stopping AIDS (which it's not, but let's just use that number), and a person has sex with a condom 100 times, the probability that the condom worked every time is (.99)^100 = 36.6%. That's not a very high success rate, and at 95% effectiveness (still higher than reality) the success rate drops to nearly half a percent over 100 encounters.

However, I'm not sure how the statistics that we are given work. Is the effectiveness measured on an individual basis or is it based on effectiveness used at a certain frequency over a certain period of time?

[Ellenita]

Interesting article.

There was a Panaroma programme on the BBC last week which was openly critical of the Churchs' position on the use of condoms in relation to HIV/Aids. The programme tore apart the evidence used by the bishop who claims that the HIV virus can leak through condoms - the medical evidence he cited has been refuted by the authors of the research themselves who say that he took their evidence out of context.

It was very difficult hearing him describe the woman who became infected by her husband as a martyr...she said she knew her husband was infected but couldn't use a condom because she would go to hell if she did.

The use of condoms in terms of stopping the spread of the virus was 'proved' as effective by the journalist through interviewing women in a brothel in Navada US, all of whom routinely have multiple partners and use condoms in their 'work' and none of whom have ever been infected - they made the case that it is improper use of condoms which results in the unreliability of them.

Sadly, of course, there was no real discussion on living chaste lives before marriage or being faithful within marriage.

The BBC is currently being criticised in the Catholic press in the UK for having an anti catholic bias.

[ironmonk]

I found the article at www.Zenit.org.


I think I'll believe the following before I believe the BBC...
[quote]
[url="http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html"]http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html[/url]
In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.

One reason condoms fail in preventing the transfer of AIDS is that latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called "voids." Sperm is larger than the holes, but the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy for the virus to pass through [Source: Dr. C. M. Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology]. To give you an idea of how easy it would be for the virus to pass through these holes, just imagine a ping pong ball going through a basketball hoop.


The United States' Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 56 million Americans have an incurable STD. That means 1 in 5 Americans are infected!

12 million people get a new STD each year!

33,000 people get a new STD every day and 22,000 of them are 15 to 24 years old!

25% of High School students will be infected with an STD before graduation!


[**Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York and Center for Disease Control, Atlanta]


[/quote]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Ellenita]

Actually the BBC didn't claim the issue about the virus leaking through condoms was false! The reporter interviewed the researchers from two different pieces of research which have been cited by the bishop as evidence to suggest this is the case, and they both clearly stated that he has taken their evidence and misinterpreted the findings. I wish I could remember the names of the researchers!

I'm not arguing that condom use is effective in reducing the spread of the HIV virus - the fact that there are huge numbers of pregnancies that were 'not planned' when condoms were being used is evidence in itself that they provide less than adequate 'protection' I would have thought, but I'm not sure how useful it is to use the argument that the virus can leak through them if it's not proven conclusively, and actually it's incorrect use of them that is the problem.

Personally I think the church should be very clear - her teaching is that we should live chaste lives unless we are married and be faithful within marriage.

I was concerned about the women who became infected through her husband when knowing that he had the virus though.....I still haven't thought that one through. It seemed extraordinarily cruel to me.....my initial reaction.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Jul 8 2004, 08:46 PM'] Actually the BBC didn't claim the issue about the virus leaking through condoms was false! The reporter interviewed the researchers from two different pieces of research which have been cited by the bishop as evidence to suggest this is the case, and they both clearly stated that he has taken their evidence and misinterpreted the findings. I wish I could remember the names of the researchers!

I'm not arguing that condom use is effective in reducing the spread of the HIV virus - the fact that there are huge numbers of pregnancies that were 'not planned' when condoms were being used is evidence in itself that they provide less than adequate 'protection' I would have thought, but I'm not sure how useful it is to use the argument that the virus can leak through them if it's not proven conclusively, and actually it's incorrect use of them that is the problem.

Personally I think the church should be very clear - her teaching is that we should live chaste lives unless we are married and be faithful within marriage.

I was concerned about the women who became infected through her husband when knowing that he had the virus though.....I still haven't thought that one through. It seemed extraordinarily cruel to me.....my initial reaction. [/quote]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression... I was just wanting to show other evidence from a very creditable source (someone who's life is latex) to show the Church is correct.


God Bless, Love in Christ,
ironmonk

[Ellenita]

[quote]I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the wrong impression... [/quote]

:freak:

It's way too scary to have you, a die hard conservative, saying sorry to a left leaning liberal like me Ironmonk, especially on something as controversial as condom use!!!!

:ph34r:

[BeenaBobba]

Good article. I've always said that the "contraception agenda" is counterproductive. It's like a vicious cycle. Schools constantly tell students about the "importance" of contraception use, so teens get a false sense of security in contraception. Because of this, they feel more comfortable having sex whenever they get the urge (which, in many cases, is often). Because the condom isn't 100% effective, and because there will always be human error, girls get pregnant, and both men and women get infected with STDs -- some of which are deadly. Abstaining from sex before marriage is the only safe thing to do. Why put one's physical and spiritual life at risk?

God bless,

Jennifer

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Jul 8 2004, 05:08 PM']

It was very difficult hearing him describe the woman who became infected by her husband as a martyr...she said she knew her husband was infected but couldn't use a condom because she would go to hell if she did.

The use of condoms in terms of stopping the spread of the virus was 'proved' as effective by the journalist through interviewing women in a brothel in Navada US, all of whom routinely have multiple partners and use condoms in their 'work' and none of whom have ever been infected - they made the case that it is improper use of condoms which results in the unreliability of them.

[/quote]
The odds were not good for the lady even if she used a condom.

“Condoms have a substantial failure rate for AIDS transmission. The risk of fatal infection is quantifiably significant. Among heterosexual couples studied using condoms in which one partner was infected, 30 percent became infected within the year.” (M. Fischl, “Evaluation of Heterosexual Partners, Children, and Household Contacts of Adults with AIDS,” Journal of the American Medical Association 257 [1987]: 447-449).


"One hundred percent use of condoms for many years is so uncommon that it is almost a purely theoretical concept except for very few, very meticulous individuals. Even among adults who knew that their partner had HIV, only 56 percent used condoms every time (and the median follow up was only 24 months)."

[url="http://www.medinstitute.org/media/Monograph.htm"]http://www.medinstitute.org/media/Monograph.htm[/url]




“There are no clinical (human) data supporting the value of condoms in preventing the spread of a range of diseases including…human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) the precursor of AIDS” (Lawrence J. McNamee, M.D., Brian F. McNamee M.D., AIDS: The Nation’s First Politically Protected Disease. National Medical legal Publishing House, 1988, 102-113).

[conservativecatholic]

[quote]Education Minister Andrew Mulenga explained that condoms were encouraging young people to have premarital sex. [/quote]

Ditto! Can u believe that our school was debating whether to install condom dispensers in the bathrooms?!?!?! I was outraged! Condoms in schools, if anything, endanger the health and moral stability of a student and encourage sex among classmates.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I think a lot of the pro-condom attitude is liberal snobbery. They believe that the poor are unable to control their sexual urges, so the best course of action is to teach them to slap a condom on before sex. If we treat everyone with the dignity that all humans deserve, then they will see they are above being merely an animal and can control their sexual urges.

Then again, control of sexuality is usually linked to morality and religion. Liberals can't stand for that and want everything to be totally secular.