Pope to Africa: Don't use condoms

[John Cuthber]

Which one of the assertions?

 

As transdecimal guessed, the point in post #25 where it is asserted that HIV can get through condoms.

It's clearly nonsense, that's why I wanted to know where the idea came from.

Incidentlly I note with mild amusement that this "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." fails to point out that masturbation is the safest form of sex there is from the point of view of disease transmission (and it's pretty low-risk from other points of view too).

Of course, if it had said that then perhaps nobody would have been able to say that the CDC's point of view coincided with the Pope's.

 

Also, while I haven't been able to track it down there was a point raised in (I think) New scientist wher the Pope's words were being misrepresented by the Vatican's spokesmen. What they said he said didn't tally with what he actually said.

(EDIT) I have just had a look at that webpage. It's the wrong pope. It's dated before the current one came to power, so I'm not certain how relevant it now is.

 

Still, I wait for the Pope to speak out in favour of a quick hand job- at worst you are only risking your imortal soul- not anyone else's.

Edited March 30, 2009 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

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

How about the Lancet, practically the most trusted journal in medicine. Is that good enough for you, or would you prefer to take the word of the Vatican's PR department?

 

 

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60627-9/fulltext#article_upsell

Speaking during his first visit to Africa, the Pope said HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".

 

<...>

 

Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear.

 

<...>

 

When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record. Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/Aids worldwide.

 

 

Yeah... Or, you could choose to listen to the PR department of the moron who is getting lambasted over his idiotic comments. If that's your prerogative, then all the power to you, friend.

[mooeypoo]

Thanks iNow, I was about to do the search myself - I couldnt' remember where I've read this.

 

BTW, I do acknowledge the fact that it was unfair of me to not post the reference -- I just remembered reading it and thought it was from the link you supplied (Mr Skeptic) but it wasn't. iNow's link is close enough, I've seen it elsewhere too.

[Mr Skeptic]

Thanks iNow, I was about to do the search myself - I couldnt' remember where I've read this.

 

BTW, I do acknowledge the fact that it was unfair of me to not post the reference -- I just remembered reading it and thought it was from the link you supplied (Mr Skeptic) but it wasn't. iNow's link is close enough, I've seen it elsewhere too.

 

Turns out that the link I shared was from the previous Pope, though I'd imagine they'd have similar reasoning. Yes, that link did cite a study showing that virus particles could pass through condoms (don't know whether they studied latex or eg lamb intestine condoms), but nowhere in either that link nor the link iNow shared does the Pope say that condoms are "entirely unhelpful in preventing HIV, and that the virus can go through tiny holes in the latex." as mooey said.

 

An analogy. The parachutes decrease (but do not eliminate) the chance of death and injury for people jumping off airplanes. Giving out free parachutes may increase the chance of people getting hurt jumping off airplanes due to more people jumping off airplanes. Condoms decrease (but do not eliminate) the chance of acquiring or transmitting STDs during sex. Pope suggests handing out condoms may be counterproductive due to increased risky behavior. Not that they are themselves ineffective.

[iNow]

Condoms decrease (but do not eliminate) the chance of acquiring or transmitting STDs during sex. Pope suggests handing out condoms may be counterproductive due to increased risky behavior. Not that they are themselves ineffective.

 

The pope was conflating the availability of condoms with humans innate sexual desire and hormonal urges to act on that desire, as if sexual activity is caused by condom availability. Tell me again how his comments were not misguided and dangerous to a population right now being devastated by this disease?

 

 

Infallible, my ass.

[cameron marical]

is sounds like my biology professuer was taking lessons from the pope.

[mooeypoo]

is sounds like my biology professuer was taking lessons from the pope.

Which is why religion and science should not be mixed.

Specifically not in the classroom.

[Lan(r)12]

c'mon people...he's the pope. You don't expect him to toss condoms from a train like they were candy do you? He believes (and correctly) that abstinence is the key to solving the epidemic. While this is true, we ALL know that that will never happen.

 

So, condoms WOULD be the next best thing. But as mentioned earlier, he is the pope, and he will not advocate premarital, recreational sex.

 

That's the whole gist of what he was saying, he just didnt articulate it very well.

[John Cuthber]

"He believes (and correctly) that abstinence is the key to solving the epidemic."

 

He may believe it, but that doesn't make it correct.

 

"While this is true, we ALL know that that will never happen."

 

If universal abstainance won't ever happen then it cannot be the answer to anything; please make up your mind.

 

If he articulates things so badly that people think that they should stop using condoms then he ought to be replaced by someone who will do less damage.

[Lan(r)12]

Abstinence WOULD work, and thus, is one option, albeit not a viable one.

 

So, yes, condoms would help solve the problem, but complete abstinence would eradicate it.

But it won't work, just as idealized communism isn't applicable by human standards.

 

I personally don't care for this pope, so I wouldnt mind him being replaced.

 

I just can't believe how everyone is misconstruing his words...

[John Cuthber]

If the virus were suddenly all to mutate into something harmless that would eradicate the disease; but it isn't going to happen.

If I were suddenly to aquire "superpowers" I could eradicate the disease; but it isn't going to happen.

If everyone were to engage in sex only with people who were born in the same calendar year as them, that would eradicate the disease (eventually); but it isn't going to happen.

There are an infinite number of ways to eradicate the disease that are not going to happen.

There's no real point discussing them.

Among that list is total abstainance; why discuss it?

 

I take your point about communism- it works for robots, but not for people. That means it's a bad system because, if it doesn't work for people it doesn't really work.

 

 

" just can't believe how everyone is misconstruing his words..."

The Pope's words were clear enough.

"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem"

What he said was wrong: condoms help.

If he had said "Monogamy has a very low risk and is condoned by the church" that would have been fine.

If he had said "Condoms reduce the risk of aquiring or spreading this disease but are anathema to the teachings of the church" that would have been fine too.

 

But what he did was talk about condoms "which can even increase the problem"

which simply isn't true. The net effect of condom use is to significantly reduce the spread of the disease.

[Lan(r)12]

" just can't believe how everyone is misconstruing his words..."

The Pope's words were clear enough.

"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem"

What he said was wrong: condoms help.

If he had said "Monogamy has a very low risk and is condoned by the church" that would have been fine.

If he had said "Condoms reduce the risk of aquiring or spreading this disease but are anathema to the teachings of the church" that would have been fine too.

 

But what he did was talk about condoms "which can even increase the problem"

which simply isn't true. The net effect of condom use is to significantly reduce the spread of the disease.

 

Youre correct. I yield the fact that the Pope was incredibly stupid in his speech.

But hopefully you see my point as well.

And he probably should have said the second thing you suggested.

[Daecon]

A cure would work, too. Why isn't the Pope advocating that?

 

Oh, yeah... science.

[DrDNA]

Why is everyone, except Mooeypoo, shouting and not citing facts and references...

 

You are no better than those who you detest.....

 

Effectiveness of latex condoms as a barrier to human immunodeficiency virus-sized particles under conditions of simulated use.

Carey RF, Herman WA, Retta SM, Rinaldi JE, Herman BA, Athey TW.

 

Division of Physical Sciences, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland.

 

Condoms were tested in an in vitro system simulating key physical conditions that can influence viral particle leakage through condoms during actual coitus. The system quantitatively addresses pressure, pH, temperature, surfactant properties, and anatomical geometry. A suspension of fluorescence-labeled, 110-nm polystyrene microspheres models free human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in semen, and condom leakage is detected spectrofluorometrically. Leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable (P less than 0.03) for as many as 29 of the 89 condoms tested. Worst-case condom barrier effectiveness (fluid transfer prevention), however, is shown to be at least 10(4) times better than not using a condom at all, suggesting that condom use substantially reduces but does not eliminate the risk of HIV transmission.

 

PIP: Physical science researchers tested the ability of 89 undamaged latex condoms manufactured in the US to prevent passage of HIV=size particles under simulated physiologic conditions at their Food and Drug Administration laboratory in Rockville, Maryland. The design of the test system considered particle size, pH, surface tension, and time. A suspension of polystyrene 110 nm microspheres labeled with fluorescent dye served as the HIV-sized particle model in semen. They challenged each condom with this suspension for 30 minutes. The test did not include motion since stretching over the penis accounts for most pore stretching. Leakage of fluorescent dye occurred in 29 condoms (p .03). 21 condoms leaked at minimum leak rates 1 nl/s, 7 at 1-6 nl/s, and 1 at around 10 nl/s. Assuming the leakage occurred through the only pore in each condom, the pore diameters ranged from 2 to 7 mcm. Also assuming an even more conservative criterion, the qualitative results were the same: 11 condoms with leak rates were nl/s vs. 6 condoms with leak rates 1-9 nl/s (p .002). The widely used 300 ml water test did not indicate any pores in any of the condoms. In the extreme and highly unlikely scenario of all the fluid being pumped out of the condom, the transfer rate would be about 0.1 mcl after 10 minutes of thrusting after ejaculation filled the condom with semen (i.e., 0.01% of a typical 3 ml ejaculate). Thus proper use of latex condoms would result in exposure reduction from HIV of at least 4 orders of magnitude. These findings demonstrated that use of latex condoms can significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission, but it does not eliminate that risk.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1411838

[cameron marical]

how does it reduce, but not eliminate?

 

is that just what they have to say to make sure no one will get knocked up and sue them?

[iNow]

how does it reduce, but not eliminate?

Nothing is 100%. Interestingly, Heisenberg knows condoms, too.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why is everyone, except Mooeypoo, shouting and not citing facts and references...

 

You are no better than those who you detest.....

Fair point. Let's look into this assumption about the effectiveness of abstinence policies:

 

 

The limits of abstinence-only in preventing sexually transmitted infections

Over the past century, public health approaches to sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have come from 1 of 2 camps. Although specific policies certainly reflected the times in which they arose, the debate over STI prevention today is surprisingly similar to that of the early 20th century . One camp advocates comprehensive education and skills. The other focuses only on eliminating adolescent sexual activity. Today, national as well as state and local public health policy is driven increasingly by an abstinence-only-until-marriage prevention approach. Although supporters of this approach to policy may have varied religious and moral agendas, abstinence is promoted by them as unambiguous, safe, and 100% effective. These claims are based on a common sense foundation of epidemiologic causality: sexual activity is a necessary and sufficient cause for infection transmission when 1 partner is infected.

J. Dennis Fortenberry

Journal of Adolescent Health

April 2005 (Vol. 36, Issue 4, Pages 269-270)

 

 

 

Abstinence and abstinence-only education: A review of U.S. policies and programs

Abstract: Abstinence from sexual intercourse is an important behavioral strategy for preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy among adolescents. Many adolescents, including most younger adolescents, have not initiated sexual intercourse and many sexually experienced adolescents and young adults are abstinent for varying periods of time. There is broad support for abstinence as a necessary and appropriate part of sexuality education. Controversy arises when abstinence is provided to adolescents as a sole choice and where health information on other choices is restricted or misrepresented. Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs. Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot marry, and most initiate sexual intercourse and other sexual behaviors as adolescents. Although abstinence is a healthy behavioral option for teens, abstinence as a sole option for adolescents is scientifically and ethically problematic. A recent emphasis on abstinence-only programs and policies appears to be undermining more comprehensive sexuality education and other government-sponsored programs. We believe that abstinence-only education programs, as defined by federal funding requirements, are morally problematic, by withholding information and promoting questionable and inaccurate opinions. Abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life.

John Santelli, Mary A. Ott, Maureen Lyon, Jennifer Rogers, Daniel Summers, Rebecca Schleifer

Journal of Adolescent Health

January 2006 (Vol. 38, Issue 1, Pages 72-81)

 

 

Abstinence Pledges Don't Protect Against STDs: Delaying first intercourse had no significant effect on sexually transmitted disease incidence.

Teens who take a sexual abstinence pledge delay their sexual debut for a few years, but they have just as many sexually transmitted infections as nonpledgers, probably because they are more likely to engage in noncoital sex and aren't as likely to use a condom during any sexual activity.

MICHELE G. SULLIVAN

Ob.Gyn. News

15 April 2005 (Vol. 40, Issue 8, Page 34)

[cameron marical]

Nothing is 100%. Interestingly, Heisenberg knows condoms, too.

 

ha, my dad says quite the opposite, wich in its own way is right, but...

 

"if its not 100% right its not right at all"

[iNow]

If you're not first, you're last, eh?

 

 

When I wake up in the morning, I piss excellence.

[cameron marical]

nice.

[mooeypoo]

ha, my dad says quite the opposite, wich in its own way is right, but...

 

"if its not 100% right its not right at all"

You should ask him to give you an example of something that's 100% right all the time.

[jake.com]

You should ask him to give you an example of something that's 100% right all the time.

 

He would say god is right all the time, and then a atheist vs. christian riot would erupt.

[mooeypoo]

He would say god is right all the time, and then a atheist vs. christian riot would erupt.

No riot would erupt, he would just receive a list of problems with that statement, or a list of bible verses that are .. well, wrong.

 

But my point holds, jake - nothing is 100% in the world, which is why Condoms can be extremely effective and yet not perfect. That does not mean they should not be used, or that the pope - with such an overwhelming power position over people - should lecture against using them in countries that the risk of HIV infection is ridiculously high.

 

Essentially, the people who will not use condoms in Africa have such a high risk of getting HIV*, that telling them not to keep themselves safe is akin to sending them to their deaths.

 

~moo

 

* According to the statistics of the amount of people who have it and the amount of people who get it each year, look at the previous posts for the stats themselves.

[jake.com]

No riot would erupt, he would just receive a list of problems with that statement, or a list of bible verses that are .. well, wrong.

 

But my point holds, jake - nothing is 100% in the world, which is why Condoms can be extremely effective and yet not perfect. That does not mean they should not be used, or that the pope - with such an overwhelming power position over people - should lecture against using them in countries that the risk of HIV infection is ridiculously high.

 

Essentially, the people who will not use condoms in Africa have such a high risk of getting HIV*, that telling them not to keep themselves safe is akin to sending them to their deaths.

 

~moo

 

* According to the statistics of the amount of people who have it and the amount of people who get it each year, look at the previous posts for the stats themselves.

 

I agree with the nothing in the world being 100%, but the Pope wouldn't (I think) allow an arguement for God not being all mighty and all knowing.

[mooeypoo]

I agree with the nothing in the world being 100%, but the Pope wouldn't (I think) allow an arguement for God not being all mighty and all knowing.

This isn't a talk about God, it's a talk about a deadly disease.

[jake.com]

This isn't a talk about God, it's a talk about a deadly disease.

 

I know, but he has enough influence to sway many people into his beliefs. If he says that condoms don't work, then people who don't have the technology to prove him wrong will believe him. Anyway you put it, there's a chance that he'll bring up the arguement that he's an emissary of God, so if we are saying he is wrong, we are saying god is wrong. This wouldn't help anyone in the fight against AIDS; not him, not us, and not the people he has persuaded. Nothing we can do now, because, for most cases until recently, religion beats science in developing world's.