Come on, condoms really works.
And without condoms also, ur chance to get HIV only 1/1000.
And the girl have a big chance that's she's HIV negative.
Another quick question. 1 do ars rashes itch? 2 can one be present without a fever? 3 can it be a quarter size on my bicep?
Manufactures can't be with people when they use the condom what they do know and what the CDC has stated condoms when used correctly and consistently prevent HIV and most STDS.
I wasn't simply stating my experience with preganacy but what the condom box says. Next tim eyou look at box of condoms read it. and yes Nick is right.
Okay, thanks for your reply Nick.
They are stating risk in "Theory" - Not real risk
Here is some quotes from the HIV Experts on medhelp
There is no debate (among experts) about the HIV risks associated with oral sex. The risk is so low that almost nobody who cares for HIV infected patients has ever had a patient believed to have been infected that way. Among experts, it's a semantic issue about using terms like "no risk" and "very low risk". There is no difference between my or Dr. Hook's use of "low risk" and other experts' "no risk".
DR. HANSFIELD
"And oral sex is basically safe sex -- completely safe with respect to HIV and although not zero risk for other STDs, the chance of infection is far lower than for unprotected vaginal or anal sex. Please educate yourself about the real risks. If you stick with oral sex and condom-protected vaginal or anal sex, you have no HIV worries and very little worry about other STDs. " DR HANSFIELD
"I am sure you can find lots of people who belive that HIV is transmitted by oral sex, but you will not find scientific data to support this unrealistic concern..." DR HOOK
"HIV is not spread by touching, masturbation, oral sex or condom protected sex."- DR. HOOK
in the public HIV Prevention forum of MedHelp, TEAK and the other moderators maintain that oral sex in all forms is a zero risk activity. Would you agree with this assessment?
I TOTALLY AGREE / DR GARCIA
"The observation on thousand and thousand of observations is that HIV is not spread by oral sex (of any sort)." DR HOOK
Howcome you people believe cdc.gov when it comes to condoms, but not when it comes to oral sex? According to cdc.gov you can get HIV from unprotected oral sex:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm
"Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex, though it is a less common mode of transmission than other sexual behaviors (anal and vaginal sex). There have been a few cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is, evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex.
If the person performing oral sex has HIV, blood from their mouth may enter the body of the person receiving oral sex through
the lining of the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis);
the lining of the vagina or cervix;
the lining of the anus; or
directly into the body through small cuts or open sores.
If the person receiving oral sex has HIV, their blood, semen (cum), pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum), or vaginal fluid may contain the virus. Cells lining the mouth of the person performing oral sex may allow HIV to enter their body.
The risk of HIV transmission increases
if the person performing oral sex has cuts or sores around or in their mouth or throat;
if the person receiving oral sex ejaculates in the mouth of the person performing oral sex; or
if the person receiving oral sex has another sexually transmitted disease (STD)."
There is absolutely nothing mysterious about CORRECT condom usage that would NOT allow the risk assessors here to make a proper assessment. CORRECT condom usage essentially means absolutely NO PENETRATION without a condom and using proper procedures to prevent breakage or slippage (including upon withdrawal). With respect to the original poster's concerns, CSWs in massage parlors and brothels in San Franscisco are HIGHLY KNOWLEDGEABLE about proper condom usage. It is perfectly SAFE to assume that in the context of commercial sex work the condom was used CORRECTLY as the LIVES of these sex workers depends on that. And as condom breakage is HIGHLY NOTICEABLE to the wearer since condoms fail CATASTROPHICALLY, it is SAFE to assume that a condom remains intact throughout intercourse when no breakage is reported. An intact condom is 100% BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVE against the transmission of HIV- the virus simply CANNOT penetrate an intact condom. Whatever your personal experience has been with condoms regarding pregnancy, it should not be used as a basis for advising others on their HIV risk.
Your general point that intentions for correct condom use don't always work out has some validity but for specific cases I don't think it's correct to suggest to somebody that their sex may have been unsafe when there is no evidence in their post to support that, and my concern about such unfounded assumptions is that they just creates unnecessary anxiety for the poster. The doctors on the HIV Prevention Expert forum recommend periodic (e.g. annual for most people) testing of EVERYBODY who is sexually active (even people who claim to consistently and correctly use condoms) to account for the issue that you have raised, but would never suggest that somebody needs to test over a specific incident of condom-protected sex.
Jusst for the record it is my opinion that when used correctly everytime condoms are highly effective , yes!!!
Since none of us are present at the time of these incidents , none of us can guarantee their protected sex was 100% safe. I always thought I used them correctly. So do most people.
Condoms don't fail when used correctly and consistently.
Lavin raised an important point, if condoms can fail to prevent pregnancy in ways others than breakage, why wouldn't those ways could also allow for HIV infection?
If above true, what are the other types of condom failures apart from catastrophic breakage that would allow for HIV infection? I.e. small amounts of infected sperm passing through latex membrane and getting in contact with blood in vagina? or small amounts of infected vaginal fluids or vaginal blood passing through latex membrand and getting in contact with penis sores/cuts or urethra?
Thanks.
I don't agree/disagree with either of you and I would say that you are both right. Companies can't make guarantees of 100%, because if there is a product failure, then they would be held legally liable in every single instance that someone got pregnant for making that representation. If a car company said “upon crashing, seatbelts will be 100% effective against fatal injuries” that is just too high of a standard to hold them to, and it would not give them any leeway for viable defenses such as improper use, etc. Thus, I think the statement that condoms are 100% preventive when “used correctly” is fairly accurate…however, since the only evidence regarding the use usually comes from the user and the partner (since no one else is present) then the user can always say “yep, used it 100% properly, and she still got pregnant” without any viable recourse from the manufacturer to rebut those allegations, it does not give them any flexibility.
Effectiveness of Condoms---http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
Transmitted Diseases, Including HIV Infection, Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer.
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.
Because you didn't use the condom correctly and consistently. That's why.
condom no risk at all trust all of us!!!
dont suffer bro ur good!!!
god bless
Quick question,
you said the docs say
properly used condoms are probably just about 100% protective against gonorrhea, chalmydia, and HIV"
then why on the condom box does it say 4 out of 100 women get pregnant with condom use??
Is the sperm that gets you pregnant smaller than the viruses of these STDS and HIV??
Why on so many contraception educational info, theres a perfect use effective column and a typical use column?
Because sadly most people don't use them perfectly .
Anyway that just bothers me the whole 100% effective argument, I mean even the condom companies can't promise that and neither do most doctors or the CDC website!!!!
Yes you are totally missing something. PCR-DNA tests are not approved to diagnose HIV infection. These tests are used by physicians to monitor their patients who have already tested positive for HIV antibodies. Viral Load tests are very costly and have never been approved by the FDA for HIV status diagnosis because of the possibility of false-positive and false-negative results. Therefore, they should not be used to determine if one is HIV-positive.
unapproved ?
labcorp is also one of the labs providing that test and it is one of the largest nationally recognized and certified laboratories in the United States.
am i missing something ?
We don't talk about unapproved tests.
well, im in a similar situation as yours but i aint that innocent :(
why isnt anyone talking about the PCR DNA testing for HIV which can be taken after 28 days fro 99% accurate
at least a Negative result means 100% negative and out of danger, a positive may be a false positive with a chance of 1% but still we can count on the negative result, right ?
im planning on it but still weighing the options :|
The HIV-1 DNA by PCR test does not look for the antibodies for HIV but instead looks directly for the proviral DNA. The complex HIV-1 PCR test is 99% accurate at 28 days or more from a suspected contact or exposure. Some people may be detectable earlier. The HIV-1 DNA by PCR test has been an industry standard test in high risk professions for many years. This test may detect the presence of HIV before seroconversion. Turnaround time is typically 2-5 business days for the HIV-1 PCR. The HIV-1 Abs test is performed at the same time as the HIV-1 PCR test.
Thanks! I probably needed a shrink before this.