Conservative misinformation on the efficacy of condoms

[lilpixieofterror]

Still pretending that scientific research isn't accurate, just because the research contradict's Teal's claims?

Sorry Sweety, but the jury is far from out on this claim and even a 10 minute reading though Google search results would establish that as being accurate. The problem is though that you hate Christians and anybody who doesn't get on their hands and knees and bow before you and thus you are incapable of understanding that the research isn't quite as conclusive on this claim as you want it to be.

Are you so stupid as to think that because Teal (supposedly) worked as a nurse, then that makes her false claims true, even when her false claims contradict what the scientific evidenc shows?

Sweety, do you think you're the only one with access to Google? The CDC says:

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/

The NYT's article on herpes says (written by a doctor):

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...es-expert.html

Doesn't seem like very good odds, does it jerkard? The reality is that you're a grade A jack ass that doesn't bother to research claims very carefully and just post a bunch of studies and hopes they become true. A 50% reduction doesn't seem like good odds to me and sounds like you'll end up getting herpes, if you're sleeping with somebody with herpes, sooner or later. What do the know though, they don't get on their hands and knees and bow before jerkard, so they have to be wrong. Sorry, but the research isn't nearly as conclusive as you seem to imply it is and Teal is indeed right that condom's are not as effective against different types as STD's as some try to claim, so who is actually the one spreading false information?

It's really sad the lengths to which some of you conservative Christians go in spreading and defending dangerous misinformation.

Irony at it's finest. This information took me an entire 5 minutes to look up and I made sure I grabbed it from sources that are not 'conservative Christians', just to show how much of a jack ass you truly are. The bottom line is the only one here spreading false and dangerous misinformation around here is YOU. Try again jack ass and this time try reading sources that disagree with you vs ignoring them; it keeps the egg off your face.

[Sam]

Your sources actually refute Teal's claim that condoms are "useless against HPV/herpes" and "jackass" is one word, not two.

[lilpixieofterror]

More trolling.

Trolling (jerkard definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

Is there anybody, who doesn't disagree with you, that you don't label as a troll? Is that bow low enough for you, your majesty?

What rock have you been iving under? We've known for decades what Mr. Nobody is. Why don't you get jokes on Mr. Nobody.

Another idiotic comment that doesn't address a word. Typical jack ass.

The misinformation mentioned in the OP that you were too lazy to read. That is: the misinformation on the efficacy of condoms in preventing pregancy, herpes, and HPV infection.

I read it sweety and I went and looked around to see what others are saying. The jury is far from out on the question and doctors do seem to be divided on the issue. The CDC seems to say 'maybe' on the HPV question while a doctors on the NYT gives 100% condom usage 50% prevention when it comes to herpes. I don't know what world you're living in, but 50% doesn't seem to be too good of odds to me, so sounds like Teal's comment is rather accurate and you're just trying to throw up a bunch of information, so you can distract people from the claims being made.

And like a typical denialist, when you can't address scientific evidence, you attack the person, as opposed to addressing the evidence. Seriously, troll, making a post about "googling", does nothing to address the scientific evidence, nor does sticking the term "studies" in quotation marks, when you likely haven't even read nor understood the relevant studies.

And what did I 'deny' sweety? Go ahead, quote me what I am denying or are you seeing red again and just throwing up accusations against people whom you disagree with because your hatred of Christians and Christianity controls you? Can condom's reduce your chances of getting and STD? Sure, but how much is the question and what ones is another question. The jury seems to say it all depends on the STD in question and a lot of different factors that you flat ignore.

By the way, you're making up nonsense again. I didn't google the studies "a few minutes before posting", as I made clear from the beginning:

Sorry sweety, but using Google to tell you things you want to hear doesn't refute my statement, but keep saying stupid things and exposing that nobody should take a word you say seriously.

But since when have you ever been honest, Mrs. I-claimed-to-have-read-a-study-and-then-denied-I-read-that-study?

And again, the idiot always throws out accusations that anybody, who doesn't get on their hands and knees and bows before him, didn't read the studies. BOW BEFORE YOUR MAJESTY WORMS!



Is that low enough for you, your majesty?

Same old tired, fallacious reasoning on your part. Once again, her experience is largely irrelevant, and no more relevant than working with AIDS patients is relevant to whether HIV causes AIDS. For example: if some nurse worked with AIDS patients and that nurse claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, then that nurse's experience is largely irrelevant to the question of whether HIV causes AIDS, since that nurse's experiences contradicts the overwhelming scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Similarly, Teal's experience as a nurse means nothing in the face of the scientific evidence contradicting Teal's claims.

In other words, you didn't bother to see what she was saying and just said something stupid. Good job. Sorry idiot, but the scientific evidence is far from in your favor and as always, you say something stupid and hope nobody bothers to research your claims. Have fun digging your way out of the hole.

Teal found no serious problems with my claims. What she actually did, was basically ignore the research that contradicted her claims, while failing to provide any evidence for her claims. It was fun watching her dodge, while Sam posted some of the evidence contradicting Teal's claims.

Yeah she did, but I don't blame her for not wanting to debate a jack ass like you on them. Since you throw around the claims 'liar', 'troll', 'dishonest', etc towards anybody and everybody that doesn't get on their hands and knees and bow before you. Can't say I blame her for not wanting to deal with a jack ass like you. Luckily, nailing jack asses to the floor is a hobby of mine.

You do realize I work in the field of immunology, right? That's what I do my research in. Which is one reason why I was able to recognize the silliness of Teal's claims when she made them. No sensible person currently working in immunology is ignorant enough to think that condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of the pathogens that cause STIs.

I seriously doubt that claim because your general ignorance of even basic science keeps showing itself and a real scientist wouldn't post a bunch of articles, as though it is a refutation, and pretend that is it. I'm going to bed now have fun trolling away while I'm gone!

[lilpixieofterror]

Your sources actually refute Teal's claim that condoms are "useless against HPV/herpes" and "jackass" is one word, not two.

Hey, I got this airplane here, it crashes 50% of the time, but it flies and makes it to it's destination the other 50% of the time. Want to take a ride on my airplane? Sorry Sam, but Teal never quantified what she met by 'useless' because 50% doesn't seem like too good of odds to me, how about you? Would you take a 50% shot at riding on an airplane that fails half the time?

[Sam]

Hey, I got this airplane here, it crashes 50% of the time, but it flies and makes it to it's destination the other 50% of the time. Want to take a ride on my airplane? Sorry Sam, but Teal never quantified what she met by 'useless' because 50% doesn't seem like too good of odds to me, how about you? Would you take a 50% shot at riding on an airplane that fails half the time?

[Jichard]

Sorry Sweety, but the jury is far from out on this claim and even a 10 minute reading though Google search results would establish that as being accurate.

Hypocrite says:

Please, you have no clue what you're talking about beyond a few 'studies' that you quickly googled up a few minutes before

The problem is though that you hate Christians and anybody who doesn't get on their hands and knees and bow before you and thus you are incapable of understanding that the research isn't quite as conclusive on this claim as you want it to be.

The research says just what I claim it did.

Sweety, do you think you're the only one with access to Google? The CDC says:

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/

How does that support Teal's claim that condoms are useless against herpes and HSV?

By the way, why did you leave out the fact that the CDC contradicts Teal, since the CDC notes that condoms are not useless against HPV?

"Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

Theoretical basis for protection. Protection against genital ulcer diseases and HPV depends on the site of the sore/ulcer or infection. Latex condoms can only protect against transmission when the ulcers or infections are in genital areas that are covered or protected by the condom. Thus, consistent and correct use of latex condoms would be expected to protect against transmission of genital ulcer diseases and HPV in some, but not all, instances.

Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms provide limited protection against syphilis and herpes simplex virus-2 transmission. No conclusive studies have specifically addressed the transmission of chancroid and condom use, although several studies have documented a reduced risk of genital ulcers associated with increased condom use in settings where chancroid is a leading cause of genital ulcers.

Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer) and may mitigate the other adverse consequences of infection with HPV; condom use has been associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and clearance of HPV infection in women, and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men. A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on the acquisition of genital HPV."

The NYT's article on herpes says (written by a doctor):

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...es-expert.html

Which contradicts Teal's claim that condoms are useless against herpes.

Doesn't seem like very good odds, does it jerkard?

What in the world are you talking about? As your own source notes, condoms don't need to work perfectly in order for condoms to be beneficial. In that sense, condoms are much the same as other technologies. For example: air bags don't always work perfectly, and air bags don't always prevent deaths in accidents. But that doesn't change the fact that air bags are beneficial, since they reduce the risk of death in an accident. Parallel point for condoms: condomss don't always work perfectly, and condoms don't always prevent HPV infection. But that doesn't change the fact that condomss are beneficial, since they reduce the risk of HPV infection.

The reality is that you're a grade A jack ass that doesn't bother to research claims very carefully and just post a bunch of studies and hopes they become true. A 50% reduction doesn't seem like good odds to me

A 50% reduction is not useless, so that contradicts Teal's claims.

and sounds like you'll end up getting herpes, if you're sleeping with somebody with herpes, sooner or later. What do the know though, they don't get on their hands and knees and bow before jerkard, so they have to be wrong. Sorry, but the research isn't nearly as conclusive as you seem to imply it is

No, the research is as conclusive as I claimed: condoms are not useless against HSV and HPV, and condoms reduce the risk of infection with HSV and HPV.

and Teal is indeed right that condom's are not as effective against different types as STD's as some try to claim, so who is actually the one spreading false information?

No, Teal is wrong. You apparently need a refreshed on what Teal said:

Anyone ever notice that condom manufacturers never claim that they're for use as a contraceptive? They advertise their usefulness in the prevention of spreading disease.

Unfortunately, no one reads the tiny print. Great against GC/CT; good against HIV; crap shoot against syphilis; useless against HPV/herpes

So Teal claimed that condoms were useless against HPV/herpes. That's false information, as even your own sources show.

Irony at it's finest. This information took me an entire 5 minutes to look up and I made sure I grabbed it from sources that are not 'conservative Christians', just to show how much of a jack ass you truly are. The bottom line is the only one here spreading false and dangerous misinformation around here is YOU. Try again jack ass and this time try reading sources that disagree with you vs ignoring them; it keeps the egg off your face.

I hope your post serves as an object lesson for other people; your post illustrates the shoddy reasoning many social conservatives engage in. In your zeal to defend your ideological position, you cited sources that contradicted Teal's claim, yet you tried to pass of these sources as agreeing with Teal. This is dangerous minsformation on yor part, and you resorted to it in order to defenf your ideological position. Furthermore, your sources did not disagree with me, despite your false claims otherwise. Instead, your sources agreed with my claim that condoms are not useless against HPV and herpes, since condoms reduce the risk of acquiring HPV and HSV,

[Jichard]

Your sources actually refute Teal's claim that condoms are "useless against HPV/herpes" and "jackass" is one word, not two.

Exactly.

[Jichard]

Still pretending that your Google Scholarship is the same as actually working in the field?

Sorry Sweety, but the jury is far from out on this claim and even a 10 minute reading though Google search results would establish that as being accurate.

Sorry sweety, but using Google to tell you things you want to hear doesn't refute my statement

Hypocrisy is precious.

[Jichard]

Please, you have no clue what you're talking about beyond a few 'studies' that you quickly googled up a few minutes before posting while Teal worked in the industry for nearly two decades (and found serious problems with your claims, that you ignored). Who should I believe? A humorless troll, who tries to be a Google Scholar or somebody that worked in a field directly related to this topic?

Sorry Sweety, but the jury is far from out on this claim and even a 10 minute reading though Google search results would establish that as being accurate.

Apparently your own hypocrisy does not bother you.

[Jichard]

Trolling (jerkard definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"

Is there anybody, who doesn't disagree with you, that you don't label as a troll? Is that bow low enough for you, your majesty?



Another idiotic comment that doesn't address a word. Typical jack ass.

More trolling.

I read it sweety

And pigs fly. I highly doubt you read the studies I went over.

Is this like the time you claimed to have a read a study, and then you denied having read the study when I pointed out that you claimed to have read the studie?

and I went and looked around to see what others are saying.

From non-peer-reviewed sources, of course, as opposed to the peer-reviewed scientific studies I discussed.

The jury is far from out on the question and doctors do seem to be divided on the issue. The CDC seems to say 'maybe' on the HPV question while a doctors on the NYT gives 100% condom usage 50% prevention when it comes to herpes. I don't know what world you're living in, but 50% doesn't seem to be too good of odds to me, so sounds like Teal's comment is rather accurate and you're just trying to throw up a bunch of information, so you can distract people from the claims being made.

First, why are you going to the NYT for information on science?

Second, I explained why your own sources agree with me and contradict Teal:

Sorry Sweety, but the jury is far from out on this claim and even a 10 minute reading though Google search results would establish that as being accurate.

Hypocrite says:

Please, you have no clue what you're talking about beyond a few 'studies' that you quickly googled up a few minutes before

The problem is though that you hate Christians and anybody who doesn't get on their hands and knees and bow before you and thus you are incapable of understanding that the research isn't quite as conclusive on this claim as you want it to be.

The research says just what I claim it did.

Sweety, do you think you're the only one with access to Google? The CDC says:

Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/

How does that support Teal's claim that condoms are useless against herpes and HSV?

By the way, why did you leave out the fact that the CDC contradicts Teal, since the CDC notes that condoms are not useless against HPV?

"Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

Theoretical basis for protection. Protection against genital ulcer diseases and HPV depends on the site of the sore/ulcer or infection. Latex condoms can only protect against transmission when the ulcers or infections are in genital areas that are covered or protected by the condom. Thus, consistent and correct use of latex condoms would be expected to protect against transmission of genital ulcer diseases and HPV in some, but not all, instances.

Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms provide limited protection against syphilis and herpes simplex virus-2 transmission. No conclusive studies have specifically addressed the transmission of chancroid and condom use, although several studies have documented a reduced risk of genital ulcers associated with increased condom use in settings where chancroid is a leading cause of genital ulcers.

Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer) and may mitigate the other adverse consequences of infection with HPV; condom use has been associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and clearance of HPV infection in women, and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men. A limited number of prospective studies have demonstrated a protective effect of condoms on the acquisition of genital HPV."

The NYT's article on herpes says (written by a doctor):

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...es-expert.html

Which contradicts Teal's claim that condoms are useless against herpes.

Doesn't seem like very good odds, does it jerkard?

What in the world are you talking about? As your own source notes, condoms don't need to work perfectly in order for condoms to be beneficial. In that sense, condoms are much the same as other technologies. For example: air bags don't always work perfectly, and air bags don't always prevent deaths in accidents. But that doesn't change the fact that air bags are beneficial, since they reduce the risk of death in an accident. Parallel point for condoms: condomss don't always work perfectly, and condoms don't always prevent HPV infection. But that doesn't change the fact that condomss are beneficial, since they reduce the risk of HPV infection.

The reality is that you're a grade A jack ass that doesn't bother to research claims very carefully and just post a bunch of studies and hopes they become true. A 50% reduction doesn't seem like good odds to me

A 50% reduction is not useless, so that contradicts Teal's claims.

and sounds like you'll end up getting herpes, if you're sleeping with somebody with herpes, sooner or later. What do the know though, they don't get on their hands and knees and bow before jerkard, so they have to be wrong. Sorry, but the research isn't nearly as conclusive as you seem to imply it is

No, the research is as conclusive as I claimed: condoms are not useless against HSV and HPV, and condoms reduce the risk of infection with HSV and HPV.

and Teal is indeed right that condom's are not as effective against different types as STD's as some try to claim, so who is actually the one spreading false information?

No, Teal is wrong. You apparently need a refreshed on what Teal said:

Anyone ever notice that condom manufacturers never claim that they're for use as a contraceptive? They advertise their usefulness in the prevention of spreading disease.

Unfortunately, no one reads the tiny print. Great against GC/CT; good against HIV; crap shoot against syphilis; useless against HPV/herpes

So Teal claimed that condoms were useless against HPV/herpes. That's false information, as even your own sources show.

Irony at it's finest. This information took me an entire 5 minutes to look up and I made sure I grabbed it from sources that are not 'conservative Christians', just to show how much of a jack ass you truly are. The bottom line is the only one here spreading false and dangerous misinformation around here is YOU. Try again jack ass and this time try reading sources that disagree with you vs ignoring them; it keeps the egg off your face.

I hope your post serves as an object lesson for other people; your post illustrates the shoddy reasoning many social conservatives engage in. In your zeal to defend your ideological position, you cited sources that contradicted Teal's claim, yet you tried to pass of these sources as agreeing with Teal. This is dangerous minsformation on yor part, and you resorted to it in order to defenf your ideological position. Furthermore, your sources did not disagree with me, despite your false claims otherwise. Instead, your sources agreed with my claim that condoms are not useless against HPV and herpes, since condoms reduce the risk of acquiring HPV and HSV,

And what did I 'deny' sweety? Go ahead, quote me what I am denying

It's funny watching you deny the science on the efficacy of condoms in preventing HPV and herpes. Looks like that is what you resort to in order to defendthe claim that condoms are useless against HPV and herpes.

or are you seeing red again and just throwing up accusations against people whom you disagree with because your hatred of Christians and Christianity controls you?

Trolling.

Can condom's reduce your chances of getting and STD? Sure, but how much is the question and what ones is another question. The jury seems to say it all depends on the STD in question and a lot of different factors that you flat ignore.

Still no support for Teal's claim that condoms are useless against herpes and HPV.

Sorry sweety, but using Google to tell you things you want to hear doesn't refute my statement, but keep saying stupid things and exposing that nobody should take a word you say seriously.

Hypocrisy:

Sorry Sweety, but the jury is far from out on this claim and even a 10 minute reading though Google search results would establish that as being accurate.

And it still doesn't explain why you lied and said I googled the papers a few minutes before responding to Teal, when I made it clear that I'd read the papers months ago.

And again, the idiot always throws out accusations that anybody, who doesn't get on their hands and knees and bows before him, didn't read the studies. BOW BEFORE YOUR MAJESTY WORMS!



Is that low enough for you, your majesty?

Trolling.

In other words, you didn't bother to see what she was saying and just said something stupid. Good job. Sorry idiot, but the scientific evidence is far from in your favor and as always, you say something stupid and hope nobody bothers to research your claims. Have fun digging your way out of the hole.

Still no evidence in support of her false claim that condoms are useless against herpes and HPV. In fact, as I noted above, you've provided sources that contradict her claim. Furthermore, I've already cited that scientific evidence in support of my claim that condoms are not useless against HSV and HPV, since condoms reduce the risk of HPV and HSV infection.

Yeah she did,

No, she didn't. She ignored the evidence.

but I don't blame her for not wanting to debate a jack ass like you on them.

She ran away from the discussion with both Sam and I. Are you going to call Sam a jack ass?

Since you throw around the claims 'liar', 'troll', 'dishonest', etc towards anybody and everybody that doesn't get on their hands and knees and bow before you.

No, I only call people trolls when they hurl obscenities/insults or don't address the content of a thread/post. And I only call people liars when they either make up false claims about merepeatedly, or say something obviously false that they should know is false (like when you claimed to have read a paper, and then denied having read the paper when I pointed out that you claimed to have read the paper).

Can't say I blame her for not wanting to deal with a jack ass like you. Luckily, nailing jack asses to the floor is a hobby of mine.

Once again, dhe ran away from the discussion with both Sam and I. Are you going to call Sam a jack ass?

I seriously doubt that claim because your general ignorance of even basic science keeps showing itself

And yet I keep correcting you on your mistakes on science.

and a real scientist wouldn't post a bunch of articles, as though it is a refutation, and pretend that is it.

You do realize the hypocrisy of your post, when you went and posted articles from the CDC and the NYT, right?

Anyway, you're engaged in the same nonsensical claims. We've been over this before: scientists often cite previous scientific papers, when those scientists want to provide evidence for their claims. For example, this is often done by scientists in writing scientific papers, presenting oral talks, and presenting posters at scientific conferences. That' why scientists have reference sections and in-text citations. You apparently still don't know this, even though you pretend to know what a "real scientist" would do. You're not fooling anyone, little.

I'm going to bed now have fun trolling away while I'm gone!

And you can wake up to see how Sam has opposed the folly of your own position.

[Starlight]

Jichard, it's possible to spend endless amounts of time arguing with LPOT the troll. Don't do it man. She's dishonest and moves the goalposts constantly. Just ignore her like everybody else does.

[Sam]

Are you going to call Sam a jack ass?

Give it time.

Though if I may offer a friendly suggestion borne out of reading your posts, it wouldn't hurt for you to dial it back, also. Specifically, you have a tendency to attribute motives to people's positions without clear and substantial evidence ... not the best idea on the ol' Internet. The facts are the facts, irrespective of how they're delivered.

[Jichard]

Give it time.

Though if I may offer a friendly suggestion borne out of reading your posts, it wouldn't hurt for you to dial it back, also. Specifically, you have a tendency to attribute motives to people's positions without clear and substantial evidence ... not the best idea on the ol' Internet. The facts are the facts, irrespective of how they're delivered.

Fair enough. I've just been in so many debates with conservatives on topics like this, that it gets tedious seeing them pull the same nonsensical. One can only explain the same points to someone over and over, and have that person/group dodge those points over and over, before one stops thinking that person/group is being honest.

[Sam]

Fair enough. I've just been in so many debates with conservatives on topics like this, that it gets tedious seeing them pull the same nonsensical. One can only explain the same points to someone over and over, and have that person/group dodge those points over and over, before one stops thinking that person/group is being honest.

As the book says, There is none righteous, no, not one. Psychology shows us just how difficult is for even very sincere people to adapt their thinking or adopt new ideas. Undoubtedly, we all have certain biases that defy reason or evidence, even while we hold good intentions.

I'm not in a position to lecture; just offering the old advice to be at peace with all men, when possible.

[Starlight]

As the book says, There is none righteous, no, not one.

~twiches~
It's a pet-peeve of mine that the common interpretation of that passage is at odds with the psalm that is quoted from, which contrasts the unrighteous with the righteous. [/random aside]