Condom break

What are the chance of catching hiv from a condom break



Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his research on “intrinsic flaws” in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves (published in Rubber World, June, 1993).

Roland said that what I am about to relate is “common knowledge among good scientists who have no political agenda.”

Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size (a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.

The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I’ll mention the Canadian test below). Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that “spermicidal agents such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage.”

Roland’s paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The “inherent defects in natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns.”

And it’s not as if governments don’t know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that “leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89 condoms tested.” These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland
says a closer reading of Carey’s data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage rate, and concludes: “That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this] study…suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public health and welfare.” The federal government’s standard tests, he adds,
“cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus.” Such tests are “blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet this quantity of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as many as 100,000 HIV particles.”

As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, “The HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a tennis net.”

It’s the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different
manufacturers revealed “pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns deep.” More relevant to HIV transmission, “5 micron-wide channels, penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves.” He said the presence of such defects in latex “is well established.”

For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the
condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an “improved” 28% rate.

The few statistics illustrating the effect of condoms use on HIV transmission in homosexual acts do not give clear cut results.
R.Detels (1989)lxxxix observed a 2.9% drop in seroconversion when condoms were used in homosexual intercourse, in a cohort of 2915 active homosexuals initally HIV sero-negative.

But, in that statistic, the number of partners for each member of the cohort was almost as important a factor as the use or not of a condom.

L.Levin et al. (1995)xc found that most (71%) of the 140 active-duty young men with documented sero-conversion who were identified in various US army installations did use a condom during their homosexual or heterosexual relations.

Results seemed to indicate a paradoxal increased risk of seroconversion proportional to condom use in this series.


May 29, 2004

Potent Carcinogen found in Most Condoms

Recent study has discovered the presence of a very potent carcinogen in most condoms. Small amounts of this chemical are released whenever condoms are used.

Nobody knows whether this is serious yet however it is not likely to be healthy to expose the reproductive organs to cancer-causing substances on a regular basis.

This is a potentially serious issue for much of the world’s population that cannot afford or access other forms of birth control. I hope further studies will follow on this soon. Could this be related to the rise in cancer in women, and men as well?
May 29, 2004 in Medicine | Permalink

Anal cancer is at least 20 times more common in homosexual men than in heterosexual men.

"Is Screening for Anal Cancer Warranted in Homosexual Men?"
Sexual Health (09.04) Vol. 1; No. 3: P. 137-140::Jonathan StC. Anderson; Claire Vajdic; Andrew E. Grulich

Condom Talc danger is very serious



Talc is a very fine substance, so fine it can be used as a “dry” lubricant.

Talc is a chemical similar to asbestos, a known cancer causing substance. Talc is found in many “baby and body” powders, feminine powders and many cosmetics. It’s alsp used as a lubricant on condoms! While it makes your skin “feel” slippery smooth, talc does so much more.

How does talc keep babies and your private parts so “fresh”? Presumably by clogging the pores that secrete those necessary fluids. Also, those fine little particles manage to get into the system. And being similar to asbestos is not comforting, especially when used on babies and genital areas.

Talc’s harmful effect on human tissues has been known for quite some time. Long ago, its dry lubricating properties were used as a glove-donning powder (easy to slide on) for surgical gloves. As early as the 1930’s, talc was linked to post-operative granulomatous peritonitis and fibrous adhesions.
-from Candace Sue Kasper, MD and Dr. P. J. Chandler

Talc…(on condoms)…may result in fallopian tube fibrosis with resultant infertility. Question raised by Doctors Kasper and Chandler in Journal of the American Medical Association. (JAMA) 3/15/95
-from Nutrition Health Review, Summer 1995 n73p8(1)

“A possible tie between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, long suspected because of talc’s chemical similarity to asbestos, was strongly supported last week when a study found a higher risk of the cancer among women who used feminine deodorant sprays. The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that women who used talcum powder in the genital area had an increased ovarian cancer risk of 60% and women who used feminine deodorant sprays had a 90% increased risk.” In 1994, the FDA conducted a scientific workshop on the issue and did not find enough of a casual link to justify even a consumer warning.
-from The University of California, Berkeley Wellness Letter, April 1993 v9n7p1(2)



Delayed contact dermatitis from chemicals in rubber has been recognized since the 1930s.4 But except for rare early reports, clinicians did not appreciate systemic allergic reactions to latex proteins until 1979, when case reports began to appear in Europe. 5

Latex allergy erupted in the United States shortly after the Centers for Disease Control introduced universal precautions in 1987. By late 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 1133 reports of serious allergic reactions and anaphylaxis occurring to patients and health care staff associated with 30 classes of latex medical devices. There were 15 patient deaths associated with latex barium enema catheters.5,6

The FDA estimated that the reports represented only 1% of actual occurrences.6

Recent reports in the literature indicate that from about 1 percent to 6 percent of the general population and about 8 percent to 12 percent of regularly exposed health care workers are sensitized to latex.

An estimated 17 million Americans are now sensitive to latex ( up from not one recorded case twenty years ago).


I would get tested. its in your best interest because if you do test positive then the sooner the treatment the better you can control the virus.