Condoms do not protect against HPV

[cmotherofpirl]

Study: Even with 100 % Condom Use 30% Still Contract Potentially Deadly HPV Virus

By Gudrun Schultz

SEATTLE, Washington, June 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A new study on condom effectiveness in protecting against the cancer-causing human papilloma virus has shown a discrediting 30% failure rate. The report, however, is being praised as a breakthrough for its claim that condom use offers “significant” protection against the virus.

The study relied on the journals of 82 female university students who kept daily records of their sexual behaviour, and found that 70% of the women, who reported 100% consistent condom use, were virus-free at the end of three years.

The Illinois Family Institute criticized news reports of the study as misleading and inaccurate, saying the 30 per cent failure rate was far more important information than the limited success of the study.

“In fact, the study reports that 12 out of 42 women whose partners always used condoms did get HPV. Thus, 28.5% of the women got HPV even with 100% condom use,” said William Beckman, executive director of Illinois Right to Life Committee.

“Why isn’t the fact that condoms, even under ideal usage conditions, failed 28.5% of the time the real story here? Who would consider this an acceptable failure rate when dealing with a cancer-causing virus?”

Furthermore, Beckman points out, the study itself is inconclusive since it relies on the self-reporting of just 82 university-aged women.

“For those who are still impressed by the “70% less” infection rate, remember that with only 82 women, the sample size is so small that the results have very little statistical significance.”

The author of the study, Rachel Winer of the University of Washington in Seattle, attempted to explain the 30% infection rate which occurred despite supposedly consistent condom use by suggesting that women may have “misreported” key elements in the study, reported the New Scientist, a suggestion that alone calls into question the legitimacy of the study’s findings.

Among those applauding the report was Markus Steiner of Family Health International in Research Triangle Park, NC, who co-wrote an accompanying commentary. He told the New Scientist that the research should put an end to calls for FDA warnings against condom failures in protecting against HPV, by groups advocating abstinence.

“We’re hoping the findings of the paper will dissipate this pressure,” he said.

Beckman responded to such suggestions by saying, “If this study is proof of anything, it is proof that condoms do not provide satisfactory protection against HPV. That was the position taken by supporters of the abstinence-only approach in the first place. This study certainly does not challenge their position.”

[littleflower+JMJ]

ugh, i hate how everyone throws around this issue as "the answer to all our problems" safe sex is NOT the answer, and most importantly nothing can it prevent you from a broken heart you get from premartial sex. These ppl want something that will be the answer to abstinence and chastity but there is no equal.

I hate spring break at my school...its when they push this issue in everyone's faces.....makes me sick. :

[heavenseeker]

when are people going to learn that there is no such thing as "safe sex". abstinence and chastity are the ONLY way.

[Iacobus]

They are talking about putting numbers on the labels for condoms that give the failure rates, etc. The failure rates of condoms (in terms of creating a baby), generally, are fairly small, when properly used. When improperly used the rate drops massively (at least 20%). Considering that I have seen figures on the rate of proper use (from groups promoting "safe sex) that suggest that condoms are often improperly used (I want to say 88% of the time is proper, so 12% is improper, but I don't know numbers for sure, I took health too many years ago and never really needed to do the whole risk anaylsis thing as I am not active or ever been so), I am not sure that people accurately repersent those failure rates. Maybe we should put both on the label.

Or maybe just not have a label as there is no such item.

[avemaria40]

Abstinence: 100% effective
protects against physical AND emotional side effects from sex
less expensive and easier to use than birth control


if only people would encourage that instead of giving out condoms which don't even work against HPV. How come 70% is considered awesome against HPV but ineffective as an NFP rate?

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='avemaria40' post='1013679' date='Jun 28 2006, 06:41 AM']
Abstinence: 100% effective
protects against physical AND emotional side effects from sex
less expensive and easier to use than birth control
if only people would encourage that instead of giving out condoms which don't even work against HPV. How come 70% is considered awesome against HPV but ineffective as an NFP rate?
[/quote]

Its the whole contraceptive mentality, everything is meant to prevent having a baby, God forbid we actually might WANT one, or be happy for an "Oops" baby.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1013780' date='Jun 28 2006, 09:50 AM']
Its the whole contraceptive mentality, everything is meant to prevent having a baby, God forbid we actually might WANT one, or be happy for an "Oops" baby.
[/quote]
Babies used to be considered a gift.
Thank God for such gifts.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Amen to that, Cmom.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Iacobus' post='1013550' date='Jun 27 2006, 10:38 PM']They are talking about putting numbers on the labels for condoms that give the failure rates, etc. The failure rates of condoms (in terms of creating a baby), generally, are fairly small, when properly used. When improperly used the rate drops massively (at least 20%). Considering that I have seen figures on the rate of proper use (from groups promoting "safe sex) that suggest that condoms are often improperly used (I want to say 88% of the time is proper, so 12% is improper, but I don't know numbers for sure, I took health too many years ago and never really needed to do the whole risk anaylsis thing as I am not active or ever been so), I am not sure that people accurately repersent those failure rates. Maybe we should put both on the label.

Or maybe just not have a label as there is no such item.[/quote]


I think they should put the warnings on the condoms themselves!!

"Honey what are you doing?"

"I'm reading the warning label!"

"What does it say?"

Edited June 28, 2007 by Era Might

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1013804' date='Jun 28 2006, 11:11 AM']I think they should put the warnings on the condoms themselves!!

"Honey what are you doing?"

"I'm reading the warning label!"

"What does it say?"[/quote]

[Didacus]

Just thought I'd point out a little something;

[quote]“Why isn’t the fact that condoms, even under ideal usage conditions, failed 28.5% of the time the real story here? Who would consider this an acceptable failure rate when dealing with a cancer-causing virus?”[/quote]

This does not mean that condoms fail 28.5% of the time. It means that condom use failed for 28.5% of women. They might each have used condoms 100 times with a single failure, but that one time was enough.

If you wanted the failure rate of condoms, you would have to count the number of sexual relations these women had WITH INFECTED PEOPLE, and then compile the number of times the condoms failed. Of course, this is impossible.

I suspect that the failure rate of condoms is much lower than 28.5%; if I was to guess, I would put my money on 0.5% failure rate. However, even with that 'small' odds, it remains only a matter of time before premiscious behaving people eventually contract a disease.

Failure rate of condoms is a non-sense argument; people's behaviors and indulgences in their lives is the only factor which determines their ultimate outcome.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1013780' date='Jun 28 2006, 07:50 AM']
Its the whole contraceptive mentality, everything is meant to prevent having a baby, God forbid we actually might WANT one, or be happy for an "Oops" baby.
[/quote]
:applause:

[Era Might]

I read an article not too long ago about how they've invented a cure for HPV or something. It's kind of bittersweet. It's great that they can cure something, but people are gonna take the cure and use it to justify their reckless lifestyles.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1013894' date='Jun 28 2006, 12:55 PM']
I read an article not too long ago about how they've invented a cure for HPV or something. It's kind of bittersweet. It's great that they can cure something, but people are gonna take the cure and use it to justify their reckless lifestyles.
[/quote]According to the Wiki, Merck recently released an FDA-approved vaccine for HPV ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine"]see link[/url]). Unfortunately, there has never been a "cure" for a virus after it is contracted. The best that medicine (and the human body) can do is put it into remission.

[jiyoung]

Condoms are relatively ineffective because HPV can exist not just on the genitals but on the general area, right? So because it doesn't cover the whole area, you're not safe. I remember pounding this point home with my bio teacher, who kept insisting that condoms were a cure-all prevent-all, but if HPV really isn't preventable with condoms, and especially if it can cause cervical cancer (!), then really the BEST option is abstinence. (He didn't really want to admit it, but I coaxed it out of him.)