[tooki]

November 11, 2005
F.D.A. Reports Reduced Risks With Condoms

By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - Used correctly, latex condoms greatly reduce the risks of pregnancy and disease, the Food and Drug Administration said Thursday in a 63-page report.

Prepared in response to a five-year-old law, the report is to form the basis for labels for condom packaging and provide more up-to-date information about effectiveness.

The federal drug regulators found that latex condoms are "highly effective" at preventing infection by H.I.V., gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis and hepatitis B, largely because all of these diseases are spread through penile contact.

But the agency noted that condoms seem to be less effective against genital herpes, human papillomavirus, syphilis and chancroid because lesions from these diseases may appear on skin not covered by condoms, the report said.

Protection against human papillomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer, "is partial at best," it stated. Still, condoms provide some protection against each of these diseases, the F.D.A. concluded. Also, the report said, "These studies show that the typical pregnancy rate after six months' reliance on condoms is 5.4 percent to 7.9 percent."

But Senator Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who sponsored the legislation that produced the report, immediately criticized its contents.

"Today's misleading recommendations by the F.D.A. are the latest example where the agency has put the public at risk by providing inaccurate information about condoms," said Mr. Coburn, a physician who has said that condom labels provide exaggerated and dangerous reassurance that condoms protect against sexually transmitted disease.

Mr. Coburn said the Food and Drug Administration had not required condom manufacturers to conduct clinical trials.

The F.D.A. has often become the focal point of battles involving abortion and reproductive politics. In recent months, an intense battle has erupted over its delay in deciding whether Plan B, an emergency contraceptive pill, should be allowed to be sold over the counter. The agency's approval in 2000 of an abortion pill enraged abortion opponents.

That same year, Mr. Coburn, as a House member, sponsored the legislation requiring the agency to reassess condom labels.

Mr. Coburn and Representative Mark Souder, Republican of Indiana, complained that the agency overstated condoms' protection against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

"This dangerous assurance overlooks the fact that condoms will not protect a user from contracting or spreading the sexual disease to others," Mr. Souder said in a statement.

The report also discusses the risks and benefits of condoms that use as a lubricant the spermicide Nonoxynol-9. Studies suggest that this spermicide may increase the risks of infection by sexually transmitted diseases because it irritates vaginal and anal skin, the report said.

The report dealt only with latex condoms.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

And we taxpayers have to pay for this? Didn't we already know every bit of this already?

tooki

[OldManMac]

You're forgetting which administration is in power, and their stance on condoms. It's actually remarkable that this got out, without being censored and/or doctored. Everything that Bush doesn't agree with is now called "junk science." Of course Tom Coburn is our friend; his stance on gays is "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power … Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda."

http://houstonvoice.com/2004/11-26/n...lnews/aids.cfm

He also once said that girls shouldn't be allowed in restrooms together, because "rampant lesbianism" is plaguing Oklahoma's high schools.

It's just so sad when such small minds exert so much power.

[Kevin]

Yes because before this administration, the Gov never spent money on inane studies.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tooki

And we taxpayers have to pay for this? Didn't we already know every bit of this already?

Well, we didn't know the bit about Nonoxynol-9 irritating cavity walls.

Or at least I didn't. So thanks for letting me know, all you American tax payers.

(BTW, US tax rates are way too high. You've just made a fine case for a dramatic reduction in them... ...to say about 20% top rate.)

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by tooki

The federal drug regulators found that latex condoms are "highly effective" at preventing infection by H.I.V., gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis and hepatitis B, largely because all of these diseases are spread through penile contact.

I'm not gay and therefore have no "penile contact" so I'm safe.

[Kevin]

Not even with yourself?

[Face Ache]

Oh I've accidentally hit myself upside the head a few times, but I know where I've been (mostly).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

Oh I've accidentally hit myself upside the head a few times, but I know where I've been (mostly).

Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one!

[subego]

Representative Mark Souder, Republican of Indiana, complained that the agency overstated condoms' protection against the virus that causes cervical cancer.

Cause he cares about the vagina.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by subego

Cause he cares about the vagina.

He had cervical cancer. As a result his face fell off.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by tooki

And we taxpayers have to pay for this? Didn't we already know every bit of this already?

You knew this part? :

But the agency noted that condoms seem to be less effective against genital herpes, human papillomavirus, syphilis and chancroid because lesions from these diseases may appear on skin not covered by condoms, the report said.

Protection against human papillomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer, "is partial at best," it stated. Still, condoms provide some protection against each of these diseases, the F.D.A. concluded. Also, the report said, "These studies show that the typical pregnancy rate after six months' reliance on condoms is 5.4 percent to 7.9 percent."

I was always told by the previous administrations and educators that condoms "prevent STDs and pregnancies". I am glad this study was released. Hopefully people will learn that condoms are not the perfect items planned parenthood and other organizations claim them to be.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

He had cervical cancer. As a result his face fell off.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by Railroader

... I was always told by the previous administrations and educators that condoms "prevent STDs and pregnancies". I am glad this study was released. Hopefully people will learn that condoms are not the perfect items planned parenthood and other organizations claim them to be.

You were told by an official (of any kind - politician/teacher/whatever) that condoms are 100% effective in preventing pregnancies and the transmission of STDs?

[ambush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You knew this part? :


I was always told by the previous administrations and educators that condoms "prevent STDs and pregnancies". I am glad this study was released. Hopefully people will learn that condoms are not the perfect items planned parenthood and other organizations claim them to be.

But then again you live in MI

[Kevin]

When living in Quebec, you really have no room to make fun of any place else.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by effgee

You were told by an official (of any kind - politician/teacher/whatever) that condoms are 100% effective in preventing pregnancies and the transmission of STDs?

Actually, I was told by officials to teach that. The actual line was "Condoms will prevent pregnancies and STDs".

This was at a major state university and it was mandated federally by the Clinton adminstration back in 1994.

[ghporter]

Actually, because of a class I took this summer, I DID know all of this stuff, even the part about Nonoxynol-9 (it's really a detergent, so it's not surprising how irritating it can be to mucous membranes). Further, many people who believe they are allergic to latex because of experience with condoms are simply more sensitive to Nonoxynol-9 than most.

But we must remember something: government warning labels come from specific government requirements, which often means reviewing already existing research and comparing a variety of studies (which often have competing or contradictory results) in order to come up with a stable thesis from which to write labels.

And I agree with everyone who points out that the current administration's stance is very much anti-condom. It appears that many functionaries in this administration have forgotten that they themselves spent as much waking (and plenty of sleeping) time as possible thinking about sex, and that many of them managed to get some practical experience that their parents didn't have a clue about. AND that most of them managed to avoid problems purely through luck.

If even 50% of the adult population had their heads on straight about sex and sexuality, the other 50% would calm WAY down and we wouldn't be worrying about Janet's nipples, but rather how to help kids avoid risky behavior and wait until they're in a real relationship (one with real emotional connections and based on something other than, or at least in addition to, hormones) before experimenting with sex. It's so much better when the glands aren't doing all the thinking!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ambush

But then again you live in MI

Nice try.

It was a federal mandate.

But, now I remember, you're French. That explains a lot. You guys treat the poor sooooo well. Looks like a real nice place to live right now eh? Feeling the heat?

[Kevin]

Anti-Condom use is a Catholic thing.

Bush isn't Catholic.

People think Christianity = Catholic.

It does not.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Anti-Condom use is a Catholic thing.

Bush isn't Catholic.

People think Christianity = Catholic.

It does not.

that's far too complicated to expect the zealots to understand here Kevin. Keep your truth-talkin' self in check yo.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Anti-Condom use is a Catholic thing.

Bush isn't Catholic.

People think Christianity = Catholic.

It does not.

The mindset is that believing condoms are helpful "encourages sexual activity." That is an actual statement from some of the more outspoken folks involved in the current sex education debate. Like kids aren't going to think about sex unless somebody gives them the idea! RIGHT! Studies actually show that knowing more about how one's body works and reacts, and why we have the urges we have helps delay sexual experimentation, rather than the opposite. But then that's actual science, and there are so few people who know anything about that involved in the fundamentalists' side of this debate to start with.

[Kevin]

Meh, kids know how to get condoms. I sure did.

Kids that don't go and buy them, aren't going to use them anyhow.

Not all kids worry about getting diseases. They are bullet proof at that age.

Of course I did not because my parents taught me about condoms, but because they taught me about taking responsibilities for your own actions.

Which I feel is a far more important lesson. One that rarely gets taught these days.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You knew this part? :

Yup.

Blisteringly obvious if you think about it.

Okay. Maybe that was a bad choice of words.

Originally Posted by Railroader

I was always told by the previous administrations and educators that condoms "prevent STDs and pregnancies". I am glad this study was released. Hopefully people will learn that condoms are not the perfect items planned parenthood and other organizations claim them to be.

These statements bear only a superficial resemblance to what I've been told by previous administrations, educators, and Planned Parenthood.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Anti-Condom use is a Catholic thing.

Bush isn't Catholic.

People think Christianity = Catholic.

It does not.

I don't know whom you're referring to, but it isn't any big secret that Bush is anti-condom, preferring instead to push abstinence as the sole method of preventing pregnancy and keeping people "chaste." Nothing wrong with abstinence, if that's what you believe, but it not reality. Bush thinks he can take us back to Leave It To Beaver, which was not a reality show.

[Kevin]

That isn't being anti-Condom. The pope is anti-Condom.

And believe it or not, not too long ago alot of people got married virgins.

I know that is hard to believe.. but it did indeed happen.

How did they ever do it?!?!?!!

Not that I have room to talk. I didn't wait. Not something I am bragging about however.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The mindset is that believing condoms are helpful "encourages sexual activity." That is an actual statement from some of the more outspoken folks involved in the current sex education debate. Like kids aren't going to think about sex unless somebody gives them the idea! RIGHT! Studies actually show that knowing more about how one's body works and reacts, and why we have the urges we have helps delay sexual experimentation, rather than the opposite. But then that's actual science, and there are so few people who know anything about that involved in the fundamentalists' side of this debate to start with.

This seems quite reasonable, but it doesn't always work in the real world. Here in the UK, for example, we have the highest rates of underage pregnancies in Europe. Yet nodders (and morning after pills) are handed out to 14-year-olds by the school nurse quite regularly.

[effgee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

... How did they ever do it?!

To the sounds typical to donkeys and sheep. Duh!




Btw (and not directed in your direction, Zimph), good job on the "teh World" vs. US vs. Frenchies thingie. You guys managed to fold that into the mix much, much faster than I could've possibly hoped. Here's to another fscked thread ...

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That isn't being anti-Condom. The pope is anti-Condom.

And believe it or not, not too long ago alot of people got married virgins.

I know that is hard to believe.. but it did indeed happen.

How did they ever do it?!?!?!!

Not that I have room to talk. I didn't wait. Not something I am bragging about however.

One more time; Bush is anti-condom.

Not as many people were virgins before they got married as you would like to believe. The largest rise in the rate of unmarried childbearing was between 1940 - 1958, when it tripled from 7.1 per thousand to 21.2. It rose slowly from 1958 - 1971, and then actually declined until 1976. There are a lot of myths being spewed out by "family values" groups that don't really want you to know true statistics.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by tooki

And we taxpayers have to pay for this? Didn't we already know every bit of this already?

tooki

The real "retards".

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by effgee

Btw (and not directed in your direction, Zimph), good job on the "teh World" vs. US vs. Frenchies thingie. You guys managed to fold that into the mix much, much faster than I could've possibly hoped. Here's to another fscked thread ...

You can thank ambush for that. I have no angst against the French (nor the French-Canadians). They are no worse (or better) than anyoneelse.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by subego

Yup.

Blisteringly obvious if you think about it.

Okay. Maybe that was a bad choice of words.

To the thinking individual. But most kids aren't thinking when it comes to sex. They are obsessing and are poorly led.

p.s. there's nothing wrong with a well placed pun. Kevin is quite good at it an people rarely get it.

Originally Posted by subego

These statements bear only a superficial resemblance to what I've been told by previous administrations, educators, and Planned Parenthood.

And what would those be? Stick a cigar in another person other than your wife and deny it to the point that you re impeached for your actions?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by KarlG

One more time; Bush is anti-condom.

No. He. Is. Not.

Show me a single quote where he says condoms are evil, or even the fact that he is against their use.

Originally Posted by KarlG

Not as many people were virgins before they got married as you would like to believe. The largest rise in the rate of unmarried childbearing was between 1940 - 1958, when it tripled from 7.1 per thousand to 21.2. It rose slowly from 1958 - 1971, and then actually declined until 1976. There are a lot of myths being spewed out by "family values" groups that don't really want you to know true statistics.

I question your data. Please supply a link.

[ApplCmptrDood]

Look at this Google ad at the top....

http://img482.imageshack.us/my.php?i...icture22am.jpg

[effgee]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You can thank ambush for that. ...

Oh. I agree 100%. Definitely a shitty thing Ambush said there. And while you did take his bait, you won't hear me judging you for that - I remember myself picking up on the occasional (and rather obvious) flame bait ...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Kids that don't go and buy them, aren't going to use them anyhow.

Uhm, not even when they steal them ?

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

I'm not gay and therefore have no "penile contact" so I'm safe.

LOL you fool, the bugs on some guys Penis ( I said Penis) enters into the Vagina. When your Penis ( I said Penis) enters into the Vagina those bugs infect you.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You knew this part? :


I was always told by the previous administrations and educators that condoms "prevent STDs and pregnancies". I am glad this study was released. Hopefully people will learn that condoms are not the perfect items planned parenthood and other organizations claim them to be.

Still better then nothing. I knew it was not fully effective against Herpes.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Kevin

When living in Quebec, you really have no room to make fun of any place else.

Don't make fun of Canada

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens

Don't make fun of Canada

But you have no problem with ambush's attempt to insult Michigan? C'mon Athens, you're better than that.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Actually, I was told by officials to teach that. The actual line was "Condoms will prevent pregnancies and STDs".

This was at a major state university and it was mandated federally by the Clinton adminstration back in 1994.

Well when I see Prevent I see that as not a absolute, but a "most likely", now if it was "Condoms will stop pregnancies and STD's" that would be way off base.

Air Port Security systems prevent bombs from getting onto planes.
Drinking driving laws prevent drunk drivers.
Anti Drug programs prevent drug abuse.

We all know those preventative measures work well but not 100%, so I do see it being correct to say Condoms will prevent such and such.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens

Still better then nothing.

Did I say that?

Originally Posted by Athens

I knew it was not fully effective against Herpes.

It's just nice to hear someone say something other than "wear a condom and you won't get an STD". A lot of people don't know that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Railroader

But most kids aren't thinking when it comes to sex. They are obsessing and are poorly led.

Hence the need to focus on the things condoms are good (nay, almost "perfect") for, rather than overcomplicate the issue with minutiae.

Originally Posted by Railroader

And what would those be? Stick a cigar in another person other than your wife and deny it to the point that you re impeached for your actions?

How would you catch an STD from that?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader

But you have no problem with ambush's attempt to insult Michigan? C'mon Athens, you're better than that.

You don't get it by saying Canada in reference to Quebec I've just insulted Ambush

PS didn't get to the Mich insult either when I posted that.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Athens

LOL you fool, the bugs on some guys Penis ( I said Penis) enters into the Vagina. When your Penis ( I said Penis) enters into the Vagina those bugs infect you.

ONCE MY PENIS ENTERS THE VAGINA THERE IS VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR ANYTHING ELSE.

Especially some other guy's penis.

No my friend I THINK YOU ARE RONG!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens

You don't get it by saying Canada in reference to Quebec I've just insulted Ambush

Ahhhh... gotcha!

Very good sir.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by subego

Hence the need to focus on the things condoms are good (nay, almost "perfect") for, rather than overcomplicate the issue with minutiae.

But the agency noted that condoms seem to be less effective against genital herpes, human papillomavirus, syphilis and chancroid because lesions from these diseases may appear on skin not covered by condoms, the report said.

Protection against human papillomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer, "is partial at best," it stated. Still, condoms provide some protection against each of these diseases, the F.D.A. concluded. Also, the report said, "These studies show that the typical pregnancy rate after six months' reliance on condoms is 5.4 percent to 7.9 percent."

You think herpes, papillomavirus, syphilis, chancroid, and a better than 1 in 20 risk of getting pregnant is "minutiae"?

Hmmm.. I'll bet you think AIDS/HIV is a mild cold then.

Originally Posted by sugego

No doubt.

Originally Posted by subego

How would you catch an STD from that?

Are you really this obtuse in real life or do you just play at in on TV?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens

Well when I see Prevent I see that as not a absolute, but a "most likely", now if it was "Condoms will stop pregnancies and STD's" that would be way off base.

Air Port Security systems prevent bombs from getting onto planes.
Drinking driving laws prevent drunk drivers.
Anti Drug programs prevent drug abuse.

We all know those preventative measures work well but not 100%, so I do see it being correct to say Condoms will prevent such and such.

I wouldn't call a greater than 1 in 20 chance very good odds.

Again, you are arguing semantics.

m-w.com:
[quote]prevent
1 archaic
a : to be in readiness for (as an occasion)
b : to meet or satisfy in advance
c : to act ahead of
d : to go or arrive before
2 : to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
3 : to keep from happening or existing <steps to prevent war>
4 : to hold or keep back

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Face Ache

ONCE MY PENIS ENTERS THE VAGINA THERE IS VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR ANYTHING ELSE.

Especially some other guy's penis.

No my friend I THINK YOU ARE RONG!

Arr I didn’t mean at the same time I got distracted and didn’t write that clearly. HIV as a example for u then, its a diseases spread via the penis either injecting it with seamen or accepting it though small cuts in the skin or through the urethra track. In the case of heterosexual sex a infected male seamen can infect the woman. You come along and never ever being in contact with another penis, you find yourself having sex with a woman who has come into contact with other penis's and now infected with something, this case aids. You risk getting infected too. But funny thing is you never came into direct contact with a Penis. Clearer for you?

[Athens]

[QUOTE=Railroader]I wouldn't call a greater than 1 in 20 chance very good odds.

Again, you are arguing semantics.

m-w.com:

prevent
1 archaic
a : to be in readiness for (as an occasion)
b : to meet or satisfy in advance
c : to act ahead of
d : to go or arrive before
2 : to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding
3 : to keep from happening or existing <steps to prevent war>
4 : to hold or keep back

Well im not trying to. 1 in 20 is a high number but it doesn’t say if the condoms broke, slipped off or any of the details for a high number. The article did say more information about the proper use of condoms. I wonder if the number would be different if condoms where used right. My boyfriend is a perfect example, he has NO clue how to put a condom on right.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens

Well im not trying to. 1 in 20 is a high number but it doesn’t say if the condoms broke, slipped off or any of the details for a high number. The article did say more information about the proper use of condoms. I wonder if the number would be different if condoms where used right. My boyfriend is a perfect example, he has NO clue how to put a condom on right.

Here's where I got the 1 in 20:

These studies show that the typical pregnancy rate after six months' reliance on condoms is 5.4 percent to 7.9 percent.

That means that people got pregnant more than 1 in 20 times over a period of 6 months of condom use. It's actually between 1 in 13 and 1 in 20.