Condoms proven to protect against (human papilloma) virus

To moderators: Given the strong objections some groups have against condom use and the charge that condoms are not effective against prevention of STDs, I believe scientific vindication counts as late breaking news. Please do not move to Health or some other forum.



The article continues at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060622/ap_on_he_me/condom_use

that wanted to block the FDA's approval because they believe that it promoted promiscuity....typical, the disease causes cancer in women and most die from it .... men do not develop cancer from this disease - keeping women barefoot, pregnant and third class citizens....

there'll be no problem getting the vaccine.

All this scientific hokus pokus and facts and shit. Liberals never stop. All they want to do is fuck. They should be waving the flag and tuning into limbaugh and suck up the truth. This country will go straight to hell if scientists keep researching stuff.

The supposed ineffectiveness of condoms against HPV is the cornerstone of the abstinence only policy. Under this policy, which is the law and governs any program which accepts federal funding, the only information about prophylactics which it is permissable to teach is that THEY DON'T WORK. Up till now, the only thing condoms were widely believed to be ineffective against was HPV. If you ever read or hear these fundie whackjobs who teach, or have been through, the abstinence only program, ALL they talk about is how condoms don't work against HPV. They will be hopping mad, let me tell you.

condoms cannot possibly have any beneficial uses . . .

because that would contradict BushCo policies . . .

therefore, it must be bad science . . .

just wait . . . some expert or other will be found who can explain it all to us . . . just wait . . .

:sarcasm:

programs without teaching any alternatives only proves to me that they value their daughters virginity more than they value their health or their lives. And not just their daughters, they want to make these decisions for everybody's daughter.

:grr:

wow...that is a lot of women..and I wonder if true, how many of them are walking around with no knowledge that they have the virus??

for all sexually active women. most of the time the virus clears out of the body all by itself, without showing any symptoms at all.

So lets say all the good little girls stay pure (oh puh-leaze) until they're safely ensconced in a marriage, like the good lord intended. Now, they're not supposed to use birth control, so no condoms.

Since it's OK, even encouraged, for men and boys to be the little stud-muffins god made them, spreading themselves like Jonny Appleseed, newly married Jonny gives his pure little wifey HPV and then she dies years later of cervical cancer.

All women should get the HPV vaccine, period. It should be given as young as possible (as soon as it's effective.)

Because no matter how pure the perfect version of american girlhood keeps herself, there are such things as molestation, rape, and a spouse who will give her this virus, even if she follows all of their rules.

It kills women. It can be prevented. What is the fucking problem, here!

And they need to keep their religion out of people's bedrooms, period. But since that's just wishful thinking on my part, and wishful thinking isn't going to do anything to combat the ages old control of female sexuality by patriarchal societies. Barring that pie in the sky dream, can't they at least see the logic in preventing a virus that KILLS women?

It is good news.

used condoms always got infected at a slower rate.

a very moderate form of the initial stages of cervical cancer, detected after I had a uterine biopsy and the ob/gyn was decent enough to also check the cervix. Sure enough, HPV is responsible for this, as well as most other cases of cervical cancer. Was I promiscuous before I got married? No (despite what my parents think). Still, that means nothing. For what it's worth, it may have been my dear hubby, but I cannot fathom not allowing an HPV vaccine from being administered to all girls if it can prevent cervical cancer.

Against the HPV vaccine, out there with their bogus abstinence programs lying to the kids about condom effectiveness, against morning after pills, against anything that offends their narrow sensibilities.

that people understand the difference because even using condoms, you can still contract HPV.

In the study, in the course of a year, some women using condoms exclusively still contracted HIV from their partners. The number was high enough that eventually, most women will get the virus, even with condom use.

This is because the tiny tiny holes in the condom are larger than the virus. I don't understand why someone isn't designing a condom with holes small enough to prevent the virus from passing.

For example, one misleading headline read: Condoms Found to Block a Virus Harmful to Women
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/health/22condom.html
<snip>
In the study, which independent experts said was the most conclusive to examine the role of condoms in preventing infection with the virus, women whose male partners used condoms every time they had sexual intercourse had less than half the rate of infection as did women whose partners used condoms less than 5 percent of the time.
<snip>
In the study, the researchers followed 82 female students at the University of Washington ages 18 through 22 from the time they said they had their first sexual intercourse with a male partner.

Every two weeks, the women electronically filed information about their daily sexual behavior and condom use to a protected Web site. Every four months, the researchers tested the women for papillomavirus and early indications of cancer. A researcher also conducted a personal interview.

The researchers used certain statistical measures to determine the findings in the study. For example, no malignant or precancerous cervical lesions were detected in 32 patient years at risk among women reporting 100 percent condom use by their partners. That compared with 14 such lesions in 97 patient years at risk among women whose partners did not use condoms or who used them less consistently.
<snip>

NOTE: The crucial measure regarding whether HPV is transmitted is not the number of malignant or precancerous cervical lesions - it is whether or not HPV is transmitted. The cellular changes caused by HPV can take years to decades to occur.

Note the sentence "women whose male partners used condoms every time they had sexual intercourse had less than half the rate of infection as did women whose partners used condoms less than 5 percent of the time". This is the crucial part. This sentence says that despite condom use, some women did get infected - albeit at half the rate of women who didn't use condoms more than 5% of the time.

The lesson to be learned: Condoms prevent against some, but not all, STDs; keep getting those pap smears if you are sexually active.

Its reduction at best.

However, I think the statistics in the story are misleading. The chart lists the "Total Number of Infections", not the percentage of women infected per group. Unless all of the groups contained the same number of women, these numbers are meaningless.

For example, why does 5-49% condom use have a higher infection rate than 0-5% if condoms are effective and protecting against HPV?