I noticed a lot of snark, but no serious effort by anyone to produce an actual percentage of cases of HIV seroconversion that would have been prevented through the use of condoms.

I guess if you are going to believe one propaganda, you may as well believe them all.

Brockway: Condoms would prevent, what...0.0014% of total cases?

"Since the epidemic began, injection drug use has directly and indirectly accounted for more than one-third (36%) of AIDS cases in the United States. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing. Of the 42,156 new cases of AIDS reported in 2000, 11,635 (28%) were IDU-associated."

CDC

Or do you just not believe that condoms are effective at stopping the spread of HIV? Cause that's some world-class dumb.

bubbaprog: Give Texas back to the Mexicans. It is a worthless place full of worthless people.

Can't. The US didn't get it from Mexico.

There's such a weird mindset, some kind of mental gymnastics that goes into that whole "condoms == promiscuity" mindset. I wrote a silly thing on my Myspace once saying something was embarrassing "like buying condoms in high school" and my cousin wrote me this whole thing about how I should be embarrassed for buying condoms in high school. The same cousin that had to drop out of high school because she got knocked up and ended up living in a trailer in a place called "Lower Pigpen". The mind reels.

Its not the government's responsibility to ensure kids practice safe sex.

If you want those kids to use condoms so bad, go yell at the parents to teach their kids about protected sex.

Brockway

I noticed a lot of snark, but no serious effort by anyone to produce an actual percentage of cases of HIV seroconversion that would have been prevented through the use of condoms.

Instead of facts, how about a personal anecdote? This IS the Internet...

I went out with an HIV+ person for two years, and had tons of sex, all the time. Always safe (ya *think*?) and never caught so much as a cold.

They really work.

I know other guys that go out and don't use protection, and within six months, they're infected. Dumbasses.

/use a condom every time!

studebaker hoch: I'm not allowed to get married. :(

Gay muslim ?

Aadhi, assalam alaikom.

Theaetetus

Tom Cruise begs to differ.

I feel so sorry for closeted gays. I REALLY feel sorry for their spouses...I can't imagine such a relationship.

Whatever. Guy's a cocktard.

IXI Jim IXI: When the hell has promiscuity needed encouraging?

When I take vacation days

I got HIV through sex, honest



If only I had used a condom.

Tonka Truck: "For the cost of one dollar we can save a couple hundred thousand dollars in medical bills"

I don't mind paying a buck to save a hundred thousand - just show me that it works.

If you have someone at risk that refuses to use a condom because it wasn't given to them for free, then you have a person who is going to refuse to use them because they 1) had to go some where to pick them up and that was inconvenient 2) were out until tomorrow and couldn't wait 3) other lame excuse.

Reality is that people who understand and believe that condoms (or sterile needles, or whatever) work and will help them save their lives, will use them - even if they have to actually fork over the money to buy them (or steal them, whatever). People who don't believe they work or will only use them if both free and convenient, won't use them often enough to change the odds much.

Medicare spends billions of dollars annually on AIDS/HIV patients who have no other sources of coverage. The Ryan White Care Act spends over 2 billion just on medicines alone, and the whole comprehensive treatment scheme is far, far more expensive.

I can't currently find average annual cost of an AIDS patient to Medicare, but given that the meds are $400+ a month, it's probably pretty safe to assume that it's gotta be over $15k a year (any doctors/public health folks with more info?).

So even if a relatively few people snag those free condoms, it's still likely to be a significant savings, as they don't make an "AIDS tree" of people they sleep with, all the folks those people sleep with, etc.

Jesus land only cares about 'people' in-utero. After that, we're all on our own.

Theaetetus: Yeah, if you're gonna claim that "reality is", then I'm gonna insist on a citation. And you're gonna have a tough time with that because places with non-abstinence-only sex ed and free condom distribution have lower rates of teen pregancy and STDs. So, maybe you meant "fantasy is..."

Well, you may have me there - I don't have any stats to back up my statement - only a strong impression that my statement is correct.

A while back, there was a flap in the media about some girl in California (can't remember what school she went to). It was a big indictment of the healthcare situation because this girl was going to have to either cut back on her gym membership or her cell phone coverage to pay the co-pay (something like $10) at the school clinic. In other words, if it wasn't free, it wasn't worth her time or sacrifice to deal with her own health issues. Someone who places their health so low on the scale that if it isn't free it's not worth doing is someone who doesn't appreciate or understand the importance of the action.

And to re-affirm the first sentence in my original statement, I don't have a problem with this - just show me data that it works before paying for more "social" programs. Spending $1 million on a program to hand out condoms is a great deal if they are actually used properly and routinely.

jaylectricity: "For the cost of one dollar we can save a couple hundred thousand dollars in medical bills," he said.

That's quite a turn around on a rubber investment.

You forgot to factor in all the future welfare prison expense.

/ducks

T.rex: Its not the government's responsibility to ensure kids practice safe sex.

If you want those kids to use condoms so bad, go yell at the parents to teach their kids about protected sex.

They're the ones that don't want their kids to know in the first place.

Brockway has got to be a troll.

I just posted numbers on how many people in the US get infected with HIV through drug use. Since 2000 it's been 28%.

But, somehow, posting a picture of a junkie proves that HIV can't be spread through sex. Or that condoms aren't effective. Or whatever he's blathering about - he doesn't even have a coherent message.

Brockway: I got HIV through sex, honest



If only I had used a condom.

Fake, you don't hit that shiat at a 90....that is unless your trying to inject it into your joints.

/Pro-Tip

cot 2008-12-22 01:22:47 PM

Brockway: Condoms would prevent, what...0.0014% of total cases?

"Since the epidemic began, injection drug use has directly and indirectly accounted for more than one-third (36%) of AIDS cases in the United States. This disturbing trend appears to be continuing. Of the 42,156 new cases of AIDS reported in 2000, 11,635 (28%) were IDU-associated."

CDC

Or do you just not believe that condoms are effective at stopping the spread of HIV? Cause that's some world-class dumb.

What is world-class dumb is you posting figures for IDU-related AIDS cases when the question was about what percentage of HIV seroconversions would have been prevented by condom use.

Wouldn't you agree that condom use would NOT be effective in preventing the HIV seroconversions in the cases of IDU-related AIDS? So there's 36% down already.

The point is that condom use during sex only prevents an exceptionally rare event anyway. The chances of seroconversion through vaginal sex is practically zero even without the condom.

Free condoms aren't free. Someone's paying.....seems to me if they're going provide them at school, let the little hump monkeys buy their own.

Frankly, I agree that religion should play no role in teen sex issues. This is a case where Darwin should be the rule of the day. If you're stupid enough to have sex ( condom or not ) and you get an STD ( deadly or not ) live or die on your own. If you get pregnant, pay for your own abortion. If there's emotional fall out from any of it? Pay for your own shrink or just suffer through it on your own.

Darwin is win here.

cot: Brockway has got to be a troll.

I just posted numbers on how many people in the US get infected with HIV through drug use. Since 2000 it's been 28%.

But, somehow, posting a picture of a junkie proves that HIV can't be spread through sex. Or that condoms aren't effective. Or whatever he's blathering about - he doesn't even have a coherent message.

Well yeah, It's Brockway. Haven't you seen his glorious trolldom in climate change threads. He's like the Skinnyhead of other rightwing punditry.

But he is right about most of the aids cases coming from needle use.

Your Holy Books, they kill people.

Does anyone doubt that if fundies got unmitigated control of the USA, that they wouldn't be as bad as the Taliban in a year.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Jesus land only cares about 'people' in-utero. After that, we're all on our own.

Ya, innocents has a higher value in Jesus Land.

Kirby Muxloe: NewportBarGuy: Jesus can cure AIDS and unwanted pregnancy with a laying of hands.

Have faith.

Yeah, but where in Texas are you going to find a guy called Jesus?

The odds do seem low.

Well, thanks for pulling the only thing out of my posting that might possibly be taken that way. Good for you. As for my "understanding", it stems from the knowledge that you don't put the cart before the horse. You don't go around with the logic that if I don't give Bob $1000, then he'll end up robbing a bank and getting arrested and then our government will have to spend many thousands of dollars in legal fees and imprisonment. If you think that giving kids free condoms will keep people from getting aids, then go buy a whole bunch yourself and hand them out. The more important statement in my previous posting is that they are freely given elsewhere, so it matters not that this particular agency stopped doing it. Constitutional jurisprudence? What the fark does that have to do with anything?



Theaetetus: Some Texan: This particular organization was just against their own distribution of them. I can understand that as they are funded by tax-payer dollars.

I can't understand why you're fine with a tax-payer-funded organization refusing to distribute tax-payer-funded condoms because they think they're "immoral". But then, Texas has never really been on the forefront of constitutional jurisprudence.

Theaetetus 2008-12-22 01:33:40 PM

Brockway: I got HIV through sex, honest

Magic Johnson frowns at your shenanigans.

You believe Magic Johnson seroconverted due to vaginal sex? Really?

Listen, if god wanted us to have free condoms, he'd have someone handing them out at a clinic somewhere.

wait... what?

Brockway: Yeah, because condoms do such a good job of preventing the HIV spread through sharing needles.

28% since 2000 from drug use. So, 100%-28%=0.0014%?

When used correctly, condoms are almost perfectly effective at stopping HIV. In actual practice (imperfect use) they are still extremely effective. for example:

"Q: Precisely what risk reduction was found for gonorrhea and HIV/AIDS?

A: Meta-analysis of several studies showed an 87 percent decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent condom users versus non-users. However, three of the best-designed studies showed that HIV infection rates were less than 1 percent per year among consistent condom users. These data provide compelling evidence that consistent use of the latex male condom is a highly effective method for preventing HIV transmission, the report says."

http://www.reproline.jhu.edu/english/6read/6issues/6network/v21-2/nt2126.htm

Brockway: You believe Magic Johnson seroconverted due to vaginal sex? Really?

I believe he got it by farking you in the nostril. I think his magic wang scrambled your brains.

What's your fascination with the word seroconverted? Did you just learn a big word?

He seroconverted because his body's immune system responded to contraction of HIV. The contraction of HIV is the initial event of concern.

They're giving condoms to 13 year olds?

The point is that condom use during sex only prevents an exceptionally rare event anyway. The chances of seroconversion through vaginal sex is practically zero even without the condom.

It's true. Even if you have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+, your chance of getting the disease is about 1%. As for giving birth, if an HIV+ mother takes the right medication and gets a c-section, the baby has about a 1% chance of getting the virus.

Whatever the statistics, though, for me it comes down to my tax moneys. And what does a condom cost, a quarter? Consider all of the other ridiculous, much more expensive things your taxes pay for. And you're going to get upset about condoms? Really?

As far as I'm concerned, if the $.82* of my tax money spent annually on condoms saves a single life, it's well worth it.

* I just made up the $.82 cents. Whatever the annual cost per taxpayer is, I'm sure it's pretty damned low.

cot 2008-12-22 01:34:43 PM :

Brockway has got to be a troll.

I just posted numbers on how many people in the US get infected with HIV through drug use. Since 2000 it's been 28%.

But, somehow, posting a picture of a junkie proves that HIV can't be spread through sex. Or that condoms aren't effective. Or whatever he's blathering about - he doesn't even have a coherent message.

Is this message coherent enough for you:

Lancet Infect Dis. 2008 Sep;8(9):553-63. Epub 2008 Aug 4. Links
Rethinking the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Powers KA, Poole C, Pettifor AE, Cohen MS.
Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, USA. powe­r­skl­ia­me­un­c­e­du

Studies of cumulative HIV incidence suggest that cofactors such as genital ulcer disease, HIV disease stage, and male circumcision influence HIV transmission; however, the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 is commonly cited as a fixed value (approximately 0.001, or one transmission per 1000 contacts). We sought to estimate transmission cofactor effects on the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 and to quantify the extent to which study methods have affected infectivity estimates. We undertook a systematic search (up to April 27, 2008) of PubMed, Web of Science, and relevant bibliographies to identify articles estimating the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1. We used meta-regression and stratified random-effects meta-analysis to assess differences in infectivity associated with cofactors and study methods. Infectivity estimates were very heterogeneous, ranging from zero transmissions after more than 100 penile-vaginal contacts in some serodiscordant couples to one transmission for every 3.1 episodes of heterosexual anal intercourse. Estimates were only weakly associated with study methods. Infectivity differences, expressed as number of transmissions per 1000 contacts, were 8.1 (95 % CI 0.4-15.8) when comparing uncircumcised to circumcised susceptible men, 6.0 (3.3-8.8) comparing susceptible individuals with and without genital ulcer disease, 1.9 (0.9-2.8) comparing late-stage to mid-stage index cases, and 2.5 (0.2-4.9) comparing early-stage to mid-stage index cases. A single value for the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 fails to reflect the variation associated with important cofactors. The commonly cited value of 0.001 was estimated among stable couples with low prevalences of high-risk cofactors, and represents a lower bound. Cofactor effects are important to include in epidemic models, policy considerations, and prevention messages.

So once again, you sheeple want to talk propaganda, and call me ignorant, but when it comes to crunch time, I cite the actual figures from peer-reviewed scientific journals, and you all get to STFU...again....just like always.

Guy Innagorillasuit: They must have noticed that people are still having sex. All the denouncement had absolutely no effect. Parents and counsellors constantly scorn them but people are still having sex and nothing seems to stop them.

They've been told not too, perhaps they are perplexed?

lake_huron: Then again, what do I know? I'm only an Infectious Diseases physician who takes care of IV drug abusers with skin and heart valve infections from shooting, people with STDs, and the occasional AIDS patient. (Saw a lot more AIDS back when I was practicing in Harlem.)

So you're really getting a kick out of these replies?

/I totally agree with you, btw.

moar funny pictures

/obligatory
//personally, I'm all for the condoms. I already support enough 'children' through Welfare.

Brockway:

I assume you're latching onto this

the heterosexual infectivity of HIV-1 is commonly cited as a fixed value (approximately 0.001, or one transmission per 1000 contacts)

It appears you're missing at least two things

1) this is PER CONTACT. If you have sex 100 times a year, you've now got a ~10% chance of getting it in a given year.

2) reading the rest of the abstract, they're studying high risk cofactors that significantly increase this number for given situations - stage of HIV, circumcision, etc.

And, regardless of all of this, vaginal sex is not the only kind of sex.

cryinoutloud: You know what I'd be comfortable with? Well, sterilizing a good portion of the human population, but that's another story.....

I have an ignore list full of Farkers I think you should start with.

cot 2008-12-22 01:55:24 PM

What's your fascination with the word seroconverted? Did you just learn a big word?

False premise. I am not fascinated by the word serodiscordant. I use this word to differentiate the subject of HIV from the subject of AIDS, since condoms clearly will have no effect on AIDS contraction relative prevalence amongst HIV+ persons, so it is a case of using self-disambiguating language so people won't be confused about the subect at hand.

And you would know that if you weren't by far the stupidest person in the history of the world.

Brockway: Is this message coherent enough for you:

That addressed the relationship between drugs and sex for HIV infectivity about as well as a study on Diplosaurus would have.