Conservative misinformation on the efficacy of condoms

[lilpixieofterror]

Trolling to avoid addressing the evidence that shows you and Teal are wrong.

useless - not fulfilling or not expected to achieve the intended purpose or desired outcome.

Not my fault you're too stupid to understand basic English.

[Jichard]

useless - not fulfilling or not expected to achieve the intended purpose or desired outcome.

Not my fault you're too stupid to understand basic English.

useless: "having or being of no use"


Condoms are not useless against herpes and HPV. Hence scientists/doctors recommending that patients use condoms, since condoms reduce the risk of HPV and herpes:

"Condom Use and the Risk of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Women"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa053284

"Among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection."

"Condom use in prevention of Human Papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia: systematic review of longitudinal studies"
http://msc.sagepub.com/content/21/1/38.full.pdf+html

"Consistent condom use appears to offer a relatively good protection from HPV infections and associated cervical neoplasia. Advice to use condoms might be used as an additional instrument to prevent unnecessary colposcopies and neoplasia treatments in cervical screening, and to reduce the risk of cervical cancer."

"Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ijc.11474/pdf

"Condom use promotes regression of CIN lesions and clearance of HPV."

"Consistent Condom Use Reduces the Genital Human Papillomavirus Burden Among High-Risk Men: The HPV Infection in Men Study"
http://hcpportalco20140430.pfizer.ed...en%20Study.pdf

"Condoms should be promoted in combination with HPV vaccination to prevent HPV infection in men."

"A Pooled Analysis of the Effect of Condoms in Preventing HSV-2 Acquisition"
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...a12d000000.pdf

"To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis using prospective data to assess the effect of condom use in preventing HSV-2 acquisition. Although the magnitude of protection was not as large as has been observed with other STIs, we found that condoms offer moderate protection against HSV-2 acquisition in men and women"

"Case-Crossover Analysis of Condom Use and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Acquisition"
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/F...Herpes.17.aspx

"This analysis suggests that condoms offer significant protection against HSV-2 transmission."

"Condom use and the prevention of genital herpes acquisition"
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11916494

"While many studies have examined the degree of protection offered through the use of condoms against HSV-2 acquisition, findings have been either difficult to interpret or inconsistent. However, the body of evidence supports the efficacy of condoms in preventing HSV-2 infection among women. More data are required for HSV-2 prevention in men. The infrequent use of condoms during pregnancy, coupled with the high incidence of complications associated with HSV-2 acquisition at this time, warrants efforts to improve condom use among male partners of pregnant women at risk of HSV-2 infection."

Your own sources admit that condoms work, and that condoms are reduce the risk of HPV and herpes. They even discuss the benefits of using a condom. So stop pretending that condoms are useless:

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

"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."

[lilpixieofterror]

useless: "having or being of no use"

Dishonest Example: Only giving part of a definition and ignoring the rest of it. IE The rest of the definition from your source:

a : ineffectual <a useless attempt>
b : not able to give service or aid

Ineffectual - not producing the proper or intended effect

What's that thing called again when you ignore information that doesn't tell you things you like to hear and only quote part of it? Either you're very stupid, a liar, or both. What is the answer Jerkard? Are you too stupid to read the rest of a definition or did you lie and hope nobody was smart enough to spend the 2 minutes to check your work?

Condoms are not useless against herpes and HPV. Hence scientists/doctors recommending that patients use condoms, since condoms reduce the risk of HPV and herpes:

Already addressed moron. Try again.

[Jichard]

Other dictionaries exist too moron. Try again



Already addressed moron. Try again.

Ignorant, intellectual lazy troll is unable to address the scientific evidence on this.


useless: "having or being of no use"


Condoms are not useless against herpes and HPV. Hence scientists/doctors recommending that patients use condoms, since condoms reduce the risk of HPV and herpes:

"Condom Use and the Risk of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Women"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa053284

"Among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection."

"Condom use in prevention of Human Papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia: systematic review of longitudinal studies"
http://msc.sagepub.com/content/21/1/38.full.pdf+html

"Consistent condom use appears to offer a relatively good protection from HPV infections and associated cervical neoplasia. Advice to use condoms might be used as an additional instrument to prevent unnecessary colposcopies and neoplasia treatments in cervical screening, and to reduce the risk of cervical cancer."

"Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ijc.11474/pdf

"Condom use promotes regression of CIN lesions and clearance of HPV."

"Consistent Condom Use Reduces the Genital Human Papillomavirus Burden Among High-Risk Men: The HPV Infection in Men Study"
http://hcpportalco20140430.pfizer.ed...en%20Study.pdf

"Condoms should be promoted in combination with HPV vaccination to prevent HPV infection in men."

"A Pooled Analysis of the Effect of Condoms in Preventing HSV-2 Acquisition"
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...a12d000000.pdf

"To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis using prospective data to assess the effect of condom use in preventing HSV-2 acquisition. Although the magnitude of protection was not as large as has been observed with other STIs, we found that condoms offer moderate protection against HSV-2 acquisition in men and women"

"Case-Crossover Analysis of Condom Use and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Acquisition"
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/F...Herpes.17.aspx

"This analysis suggests that condoms offer significant protection against HSV-2 transmission."

"Condom use and the prevention of genital herpes acquisition"
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11916494

"While many studies have examined the degree of protection offered through the use of condoms against HSV-2 acquisition, findings have been either difficult to interpret or inconsistent. However, the body of evidence supports the efficacy of condoms in preventing HSV-2 infection among women. More data are required for HSV-2 prevention in men. The infrequent use of condoms during pregnancy, coupled with the high incidence of complications associated with HSV-2 acquisition at this time, warrants efforts to improve condom use among male partners of pregnant women at risk of HSV-2 infection."

Your own sources admit that condoms work, and that condoms are reduce the risk of HPV and herpes. They even discuss the benefits of using a condom. So stop pretending that condoms are useless:

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

"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."

[lilpixieofterror]

Ignorant, intellectual lazy troll is unable to address the scientific evidence on this.

Nope, you're too stupid to understand what your opponents are saying and attack strawman. Good job moron, but I edited my post to show how stupid you really are, so let me add in my edit here:

Dishonest Example: Only giving part of a definition and ignoring the rest of it. IE The rest of the definition from your source:

a : ineffectual <a useless attempt>
b : not able to give service or aid

Ineffectual - not producing the proper or intended effect

What's that thing called again when you ignore information that doesn't tell you things you like to hear and only quote part of it? Either you're very stupid, a liar, or both. What is the answer Jerkard? Are you too stupid to read the rest of a definition or did you lie and hope nobody was smart enough to spend the 2 minutes to check your work?

Good job moron. You just shot yourself in the foot.

[Jichard]

Dangerous information (Jerkard definition): "HOW DARE YOU SPREAD INFORMATION I'M TOO STUPID TO REFUTE!"

And thus the jackass continues to show that whenever he can't refute something; call them a bunch of names and hope all the evidence that proves him wrong disappears into a puff of smoke.

It's so sad that you still can't deal with the scientific evidence showing that you and Teal are wrong.

Here's the deal: either address the evidence, or leave the thread.


useless: "having or being of no use"


Condoms are not useless against herpes and HPV. Hence scientists/doctors recommending that patients use condoms, since condoms reduce the risk of HPV and herpes:

"Condom Use and the Risk of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Women"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa053284

"Among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection."

"Condom use in prevention of Human Papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia: systematic review of longitudinal studies"
http://msc.sagepub.com/content/21/1/38.full.pdf+html

"Consistent condom use appears to offer a relatively good protection from HPV infections and associated cervical neoplasia. Advice to use condoms might be used as an additional instrument to prevent unnecessary colposcopies and neoplasia treatments in cervical screening, and to reduce the risk of cervical cancer."

"Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ijc.11474/pdf

"Condom use promotes regression of CIN lesions and clearance of HPV."

"Consistent Condom Use Reduces the Genital Human Papillomavirus Burden Among High-Risk Men: The HPV Infection in Men Study"
http://hcpportalco20140430.pfizer.ed...en%20Study.pdf

"Condoms should be promoted in combination with HPV vaccination to prevent HPV infection in men."

"A Pooled Analysis of the Effect of Condoms in Preventing HSV-2 Acquisition"
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...a12d000000.pdf

"To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis using prospective data to assess the effect of condom use in preventing HSV-2 acquisition. Although the magnitude of protection was not as large as has been observed with other STIs, we found that condoms offer moderate protection against HSV-2 acquisition in men and women"

"Case-Crossover Analysis of Condom Use and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Acquisition"
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/F...Herpes.17.aspx

"This analysis suggests that condoms offer significant protection against HSV-2 transmission."

"Condom use and the prevention of genital herpes acquisition"
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11916494

"While many studies have examined the degree of protection offered through the use of condoms against HSV-2 acquisition, findings have been either difficult to interpret or inconsistent. However, the body of evidence supports the efficacy of condoms in preventing HSV-2 infection among women. More data are required for HSV-2 prevention in men. The infrequent use of condoms during pregnancy, coupled with the high incidence of complications associated with HSV-2 acquisition at this time, warrants efforts to improve condom use among male partners of pregnant women at risk of HSV-2 infection."

Your own sources admit that condoms work, and that condoms are reduce the risk of HPV and herpes. They even discuss the benefits of using a condom. So stop pretending that condoms are useless:

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

"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."

[Jichard]

Nope, you're too stupid to understand what your opponents are saying and attack strawman. Good job moron, but I edited my post to show how stupid you really are, so let me add in my edit here:

Dishonest Example: Only giving part of a definition and ignoring the rest of it. IE The rest of the definition from your source:

a : ineffectual <a useless attempt>
b : not able to give service or aid

Ineffectual - not producing the proper or intended effect

What's that thing called again when you ignore information that doesn't tell you things you like to hear and only quote part of it? Either you're very stupid, a liar, or both. What is the answer Jerkard? Are you too stupid to read the rest of a definition or did you lie and hope nobody was smart enough to spend the 2 minutes to check your work?

Good job moron. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Address the scientific evidence, or leave the thread, troll.


useless: "having or being of no use"


Condoms are not useless against herpes and HPV. Hence scientists/doctors recommending that patients use condoms, since condoms reduce the risk of HPV and herpes:

"Condom Use and the Risk of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Women"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa053284

"Among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection."

"Condom use in prevention of Human Papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia: systematic review of longitudinal studies"
http://msc.sagepub.com/content/21/1/38.full.pdf+html

"Consistent condom use appears to offer a relatively good protection from HPV infections and associated cervical neoplasia. Advice to use condoms might be used as an additional instrument to prevent unnecessary colposcopies and neoplasia treatments in cervical screening, and to reduce the risk of cervical cancer."

"Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ijc.11474/pdf

"Condom use promotes regression of CIN lesions and clearance of HPV."

"Consistent Condom Use Reduces the Genital Human Papillomavirus Burden Among High-Risk Men: The HPV Infection in Men Study"
http://hcpportalco20140430.pfizer.ed...en%20Study.pdf

"Condoms should be promoted in combination with HPV vaccination to prevent HPV infection in men."

"A Pooled Analysis of the Effect of Condoms in Preventing HSV-2 Acquisition"
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...a12d000000.pdf

"To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis using prospective data to assess the effect of condom use in preventing HSV-2 acquisition. Although the magnitude of protection was not as large as has been observed with other STIs, we found that condoms offer moderate protection against HSV-2 acquisition in men and women"

"Case-Crossover Analysis of Condom Use and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Acquisition"
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/F...Herpes.17.aspx

"This analysis suggests that condoms offer significant protection against HSV-2 transmission."

"Condom use and the prevention of genital herpes acquisition"
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11916494

"While many studies have examined the degree of protection offered through the use of condoms against HSV-2 acquisition, findings have been either difficult to interpret or inconsistent. However, the body of evidence supports the efficacy of condoms in preventing HSV-2 infection among women. More data are required for HSV-2 prevention in men. The infrequent use of condoms during pregnancy, coupled with the high incidence of complications associated with HSV-2 acquisition at this time, warrants efforts to improve condom use among male partners of pregnant women at risk of HSV-2 infection."

Your own sources admit that condoms work, and that condoms are reduce the risk of HPV and herpes. They even discuss the benefits of using a condom. So stop pretending that condoms are useless:

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

"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."

[lilpixieofterror]

Address the scientific evidence, or leave the thread, troll.

Sorry moron, but if can't even properly source a dictionary definition correctly, why should anybody believe you when you try to cite scientific literature? Webster's dictionary clearly gave the definition that useless does not mean 100% ineffective, but in fact they actually AGREED with me and you left out the part of the definition that proved you wrong. Are you too stupid to read a dictionary correctly? If so, why should anybody believe you when it comes to much more complex information (such as a scientific study)? If you knew that part of the definition was there, but lied about it and left out the part that proved you wrong, why should anybody believe you when you try to cite scientific literature as though you're an authority on it? Doesn't that mean you might be leaving out critical details that might say the opposite of what you are claiming? We need to cover your leaving out the full dictionary definition, in order to make your opponents look bad, first. Unless of course, you can't answer it and just want to give me the boot because I exposed you for the dishonest hack you truly are. Which will just make you look that much worse. Keep digging jackass and keep attributing arguments to Teal and myself that we never made while leaving out critical details that proves you wrong.

[One Bad Pig]

Because if so, then you have an absurd view of how science works. For example, a huge number of clinical trials are not run under laboratory conditions, since the doctors want evidence on how the drug works in the outside world where people use it, not just in a lab.

I am well aware of how clinical trials work, thanks. Are you seriously comparing the rigor of sex studies with clinical trials? Clinical trials typically enroll orders of magnitude more people. Even then, however, they are inevitably less controlled than laboratory tests, because the outside world has a tendency to introduce confounding factors. Sometimes those are caught during the trials, and sometimes not.

They are quite high, if the person has HPV or is engaging in sex with someone they knows has HPV.

If someone is stupid enough to engage in sex with someone they know is infected with an STD, then they deserve the due penalty of their error.

So that justifies spreading dangerous misinformation on the efficacy of condoms? *sigh*

*sigh* No. It means you're determinedly making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Jichard]

I am well aware of how clinical trials work, thanks. Are you seriously comparing the rigor of sex studies with clinical trials?

I'm pointing out that absurdity of you acting as if a study does not count as a good example of "hard science", if the study isn't done in the lab. If you followed your absurd logic through, then you'd have to claim that clinical trials don't count as "hard science" if they're not done in the lab. OF coure, you're not going to follow through on that logic. since you're engaged in special pleading.

And you seem to be operating under the confusion that there's some sharp distinction between "clinical trials" and "sex studies". You do realize that there are clinical trials that are studies on sex, right? For example: clinical trials on a certain drug that's being given to a sexually active population.

Clinical trials typically enroll orders of magnitude more people.

Ok, now you're just inventing false claims. There are many clinical trials that enrolled less people than the research I linked to. Furthermore, discussing the number of people enrolled in a study does nothing to remedy your false implication that a study does not count as a good example of "hard science", if the study isn't done in the lab. All you're doing is moving the goalposts to find some other region to reject the research.

Even then, however, they are inevitably less controlled than laboratory tests, because the outside world has a tendency to introduce confounding factors.

So what? A study does not need to be run in the lab in order for the studies results to be accurate and for the studies results to count as good instances of "hard science". Furthermore, in science, we have lots of ways of control for variables, even if the work is not done in the laboratory. For example, we control for factors like age, when analyzing the data, along with patients smoking and so on. And as I already told you, real-world data have some benefits over laboratory experiments. For example, if you're going to look at the efficacy of condoms in the real-world, then it makes sense to examine how people use those condoms in the real world, as opposed to just a laboratory setting.

At this point, you're just looking for reasons to avoid accepting the evidence you've been provided. And the reason you're coming up with are rather bad.

If someone is stupid enough to engage in sex with someone they know is infected with an STD, then they deserve the due penalty of their error.

You meant "STI", not STD.

And what you wrote is reminiscent of people who say well, if you wear that sort of clothing, then it's no surprise you got raped, or people who say why should we waste time develop treatments for people who get lung cancer from smoking; it's their fault for smoking?, or people who say there's no need to get accurate information on treatments that will help those with obesity-related conditions, since it's there fault they're fat.

*sigh* No. It means you're determinedly making a mountain out of a molehill.

No, it means I think it's important to accurately represent the information on the efficacy on condoms, since this information can influence people's lives, especially in terms of whether people get pregnant, get STIs, and so on. You apparently don't seem to think that's very important. That's your own problem.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm pointing out that absurdity of you acting as if [I]a study does not count as a good...

Hey Jackass, I see you're avoiding admitting you were wrong, so when you quoted the dictionary what happened:

1. Are you too dumb to properly read an entire definition BEFORE you post; thus showing you are too incompetent to properly understand much more complex scientific studies?
2. Did you lie about what was said and hoping I wouldn't bother to check your work; thus proving you can't be trusted to properly represent scientific studies?
3. Both.

What is your answer? Are you too dumb to understand a dictionary, a liar, or both?

[Jichard]

Hey Jackass, I see you're avoiding admitting you were wrong, so when you quoted the dictionary what happened:

1. Are you too dumb to properly read an entire definition BEFORE you post; thus showing you are too incompetent to properly understand much more complex scientific studies?
2. Did you lie about what was said and hoping I wouldn't bother to check your work; thus proving you can't be trusted to properly represent scientific studies?
3. Both.

What is your answer? Are you too dumb to understand a dictionary, a liar, or both?

You truly are a disturbed person.

[lilpixieofterror]

You truly are a disturbed person.

Disturbed (Jerkard definition): "STOP PROVING ME WRONG!"

Sorry jackass, but you left out the part of the definition that proved you wrong. Are you too stupid to properly cite and quote a basic dictionary; thus showing that you can't possibility be trusted to properly represent much more complex scientific studies? Are you a liar and just lied about what the definitions said; thus showing you can't be trusted to properly represent a scientific study? Or both?

What is the answer or you could just admit that you didn't understand what your opponents are actually saying, but that would require you to eat some crow and we both know that will never happen.

[One Bad Pig]

If someone is stupid enough to engage in sex with someone they know is infected with an STD, then they deserve the due penalty of their error.

And what you wrote is reminiscent of people who say well, if you wear that sort of clothing, then it's no surprise you got raped, or people who say why should we waste time develop treatments for people who get lung cancer from smoking; it's their fault for smoking?, or people who say there's no need to get accurate information on treatments that will help those with obesity-related conditions, since it's there fault they're fat.

What is this, your attempt at "worst analogies ever"?

[klaus54]

If there WERE "Conservative misinformation on the efficacy of condoms", why oh why are there so many babies being born to dependent helpless Libtards?

Well..., don't go all PC on me now.