Ecumenical Dialogue - Catholic

Further on the biased BBC's Panorama programming. Note the disclaimer on Durex's (condom manufacturer) web site.  And NIH's cautious conclusion of its scientific findings.

http://www.spuc.org.uk/papers/biasbbc.pdf

[page 23-24]

The programme failed

to mention Durex’s statement on their website: "Latex condoms, when used consistently and

correctly are a highly effective barrier to the sexual transmission of HIV and other STIs."

24

success rate for ‘typical’ use is much lower. More interestingly in this context, Durex goes on

to point out that there is only one 100% effective way of preventing HIV infection.

"However, for complete protection from HIV and other STIs, the only totally effective

measure is sexual abstinence or limiting sexual intercourse to mutually faithful, uninfected

partners." Coincidentally, the Catholic Church endorses this radical, practical and foolproof

method of HIV prevention, as does the World Health Organisation.

National Institute of Health’s report. We were told:

Bradshaw: The most authoritative recent report is by the US National Institute of Health which

concluded: ‘Intact condoms are essentially impermeable to the smallest sexually transmitted virus’ and

‘that the consistent use of male condoms protects against HIV/AIDS transmissions.’

This quote does not come entirely from the conclusion of the report and is not a single,

condensed reference at all as was suggested. It is spliced from two different sections of the

report:

i) The introduction to the report (p. ii) concluded that ‘because of limitations in study

designs there was insufficient evidence from the epidemiological studies on these

diseases to draw definite conclusions about the effectiveness of the latex male condom

in reducing the transmission of these diseases.’ Why should an investigation by an

allegedly impartial broadcasting corporation fail to mention that the authoritative

report it cites acknowledges itself that it is not authoritative in so far as its evidence is

insufficient and (as point ii illustrates) prone to error?

ii) It recorded the fallibility of any study on condom use because ‘all studies must rely on

self-reported use, a potential source of error due to recall bias’ (p. 5)

iii) It recorded that ‘the combined method failure (slippage plus breakage) is estimated at

1.6% - 3.6% (p. 9) and

iv) ‘approximately 3% of couples who reported using condoms consistently and correctly

(considered "perfect use") are estimated to experience an unintended pregnancy during

the first year of use’ and ‘in a recent well-controlled randomized clinical trial of

monogamous couples using latex male condoms for contraception over six months,

the pregnancy rate during "typical use" was reported at 6.3% (p. 10).

v) Finally, ‘from the two incidence estimates, consistent condom use decreased the risk

of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%. These data provide strong

evidence for the effectiveness of condoms for reducing sexually transmitted HIV.’

Note ‘reducing’ not ‘preventing’. The programme’s major source of scientific

information for its premise that condoms prevent AIDS transmission admits itself that

condoms decrease risk by only 85% and goes on in its conclusion to state: "it is

important that robust research be pursued to ascertain the true benefits and limitations

of an available risk reduction technology". As John Smeaton commented in an

transmission but to spread the message that condom use prevents AIDS is a dangerous

lie. It is no good saying that the risk is 'only 15%', or 'only 1 in 10' when we are

The fact that latex is porous is not a matter for debate. Whether or not the porous nature of

latex can result in viral leakage is a matter of serious contention. What is of interest here,