World Aids Day, comes to us with an offer of a world without AIDS and this in the name of SAFE SEX. Will you accept this offer? Can such an offer and claim stand the test and deliver a quality of life that is error free, can it give us a Six Sigma lifestyle? Read to find out what statistics and research have to say about the quality of life offered by Safe Sex, which is compiled and presented by George A Paul.
Don’t we live in a world where we want quality products but not quality life? While manufacturing products and at work place we emphasize quality to the extent of 3.4 defects per (one) million opportunities (DPMO). However, when it comes to life, health and preventing sickness we tend not to follow six sigma lifestyle. We are satisfied with despicable stuff and contemptible solutions for our problems and buy useless products (safe sex) as our solution. This solution of ours will never reach the standards of six sigma. Yet we would accept it and also commend people who promote and sell such defective life style, as we shall examine this below.
The Doctor tells you, that Condom will not work 35 to 44% of the time, will you still use it? This is shown by the fact that 35 to 44% of the sexually active people were infected with one or more STDs in spite of using contraceptives, oral contraceptive, the diaphragm, or condoms. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/safesex.html
The doctor also informs you that the Condom is only 74% to 85% effective and cannot prevent effects like accidental pregnancy. Studies indicate that the rate of accidental pregnancy from condom-protected intercourse is around 15% to 36%, hence, only 74% to 85% protective. Hence, it is almost impossible to prevent HIV.
Moreover, the Doctor informs you, that the Condom will kill you 17% of the time, would you take chances of being killed and be one of the 17%? No, Way! I would not. A study from Florida looked at couples in which one partner was HIV positive and the other was negative. They used condoms as protection during intercourse. After 18 months, 17% of the previously uninfected partners were HIV positive. In spite of this people take risk day in and day out with the so called safe sex and they commend those who sell such cheap stuff. In commending such sales men they kill 17% of those who fall pray to such false ideas and sales pitch.
Will condoms prevent HIV infection, the virus that causes AIDS? While it is better than nothing, condoms are inherently untrustworthy. The FDA allows as many as one in 250 to be defective. Condoms are often stored and shipped at unsafe temperatures which weaken the integrity of the latex rubber causing breaks and ruptures. Condoms will break 8% of the time and slip off 7% of the time. This is in testing conditions which are multiplied by human error in usage. This we see in the study of forty-four Nevada prostitutes who had sex 41,000 times, one woman reported that 41% of condoms she used broke while three reported that 47% of condoms each used slipped. http://www.mycpc.org/stds_faqs.html
This is not six sigma quality were the failure is 7% to 8% under test conditions which is multiplied with human failure to 44% to 50% under normal conductions. Moreover, the test conditions are not actually representative of the actual conditions with the end user. Since, the variability of experiments in test conditions is small compared to actual conditions where the experiment of using a condom and its result varies from person to person. Such variation cannot be reproduced in an experiment under test conditions. Yet, the promoters of safe sex boast and guarantee 100% protection. http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html
What about the leakage test? In a group of 315 condoms selected for testing from a batch of 150,001 to 500,000 manufactured condoms (a standard test size), with a 0.40 level. AQL (acceptable quality levels) allows acceptance of the entire batch, if three condoms fail the test; if four fail, the entire batch is rejected. Tightening the AQL for leakage to 0.25 would bring the acceptable number of failures for this batch down from three condoms to two in the sample tested — i.e., the whole batch is rejected if there are three defective condoms in the sample. We need to remember that leakage test is done for Latex condoms for holes with an electrical current. If the condom passes, it is rolled and packaged and samples from batches of condoms are tested for breakage with air inflation tests. Such testing with air does not prove that HIV virus which is 1 micron (10 -6) in size will not leak through the Latex Condom.
Theoretically, no research has been done to show that such a tighter standard would result in less condom failure in use. However, statistics prove an increase in failure with the end user, as discussed above. http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/standspectests.htm
Latex rubber contains pores of the order 1 to 5 microns. Human sperm is (2.5 to 3.5 microns width) with a diameter of 300 to 500 nanometers. The HIV virus is very small: 1 micron that is (10 -6). Surgical rubber glove, surgical masks and condoms have pores that are 1 to 5 microns in size (4 time's larger pores then HIV virus). Hence "Safe sex" as presented in AIDS prevention education is not safe at all. There is a 16% failure rate in latex condoms to prevent HIV infection (compared to 10% failure rate to prevent conception). This is the same probability involved with Russian Roulette with a six-shooter. If we play the game Russian Roulette we will die for sure, it's the same with safe sex. (The chance of death is multiplied with Lubricated condoms which actually increase the likelihood of infection since the spermicidal lubricant does not impede the virus and irritates the mucous membranes, making them more susceptible to infection.). Life has become a gambling game for the rubber industry.
Having said this, if condoms are 1% effective, but lead to a 300% increase in risky conduct, then the net increase in overall risk is (.99)( 3.0) = 2.97, or a 197% increase. In that case, encouraging condoms as a preventive might increase STD transmission rates, in addition to huge "moral harm" caused by increased promiscuity resulting in broken families. However if, say condoms are 90% effective, and lead only to a 10% increase in risky sex, then the net change in risk is (.1)( 1.1) = .11, which is a 89% decrease. Even considering the second scenario society should not approve use of condoms if it feels risky sex is morally unacceptable. However, if it feels, bad outcomes are the right price to pay for immorality it may allow and promote with increased Decibel levels the use of condoms. Moreover, the logical question to ask would be, should prevention be our aim? Should we just strive just to reduce the percentage of the infected people? Should we behave as if all are infected and ask all to practice safe sex with a risk of getting 11% infected? Should a infected person be silent about being HIV positive and continue practicing safe sex? Would you indulge with such an infected person? http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/737/Samuel05.html
This is a classic case of promoting Unsafe Sex in the name of Safe Sex by the use of condoms and contraceptives. Since, prevention of HIV is the criteria. Will promoters of safe sex indulge in a so called safe sexual act with an infected person by using safe means called a condom? They would not. The safe solution prescribed only procrastinates death. By practicing safe sex we would be sick for sure, if not now, later. Moreover, let’s not forgot that indulgence by so called Safe means is dangerous and the only safe way is by having one partner and being faithful to him/her, which would prevent transmission of STD’s through sexual act. Hence the only Choice is non-risky behavior and an error free life.
Consequently with false claims and promises, with its good looking sales men and women (celebrities), the rubber industry is flourishing at the expenses of precious life which is exchanged for rubber worth few coins.
To know more about the postive results of a quality lifestyle, read:
To learn a Medical doctor's perspective read: