"The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the
National Institutes of Health, released the report compiled by the panel
of 28 experts, who analyzed about 138 published studies on the use of
condoms during penile-vaginal intercourse.

"There was a lack of evidence to help us make a definitive conclusion
about the effectiveness of condoms," said panel member Dr. Timothy
Schacker, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota"

"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:dee4a61e436160d8f1a588a0ae830b4e@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
quoting above??????????????

Gary Stein

In article <dee4a61e436160d8f1a588a0ae830b4e@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
This was dishonest when you posted it 4 months ago, and it's still
dishonest now.

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=c7ep07%24634%241%40remulak.uwaterl oo.ca>

--
David Canzi "Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find
a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a
nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity."
-- Eric Hoffer

Yes. The FDA report is available online in pdf format.

Any simple search will give you the URL.

How so?

It is a direct quote from the report (unedited) and has been quoted in
many national papers and on network television.

Tuesday, July 24, 2001
By Kelley Beaucar
Fox News

A group of doctors Tuesday claimed that the federal government,
specifically the Centers for Disease Control, has for at least a year
suppressed a study about the effectiveness of condoms.

The doctors claim that the government has known about the limitations of
condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases but nevertheless
mounted a campaign that deliberately misrepresented the risks in sex
education curricula and public health programs.

"The entire public health model developed by the CDC and based on the idea
that condoms offer protection, is a lie," said Dr. Hall Wallis, a member
of consortium. "The skeleton is now out of the closet."

At a Washington, D.C., news conference, the 10,000-member Physicians
Consortium claimed that the CDC has known for years that condoms offer
little protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea,
chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes.

Word of the condoms’ shortfalls came in a panel report released Friday by
the National Institutes of Health.

The NIH panel concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" that
condoms protect against STDs.

In article <f2d5c0fbe4560fbe55002be9bd3b5f5c@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
PaulKing <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:
Are your fingers so crippled you can't follow a link?
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...c7ep07%24634%2
41%40remulak.uwaterloo.ca>

It's a (possibly out of context) quote from Dr. Timothy Schacker, not
from the report. The report itself says that condoms "significantly
reduced the risk of HIV infection".

<http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf>
See page ii.

--
David Canzi "Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find
a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a
nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity."
-- Eric Hoffer

Here is more proof to back up Paul King's lies:

http://aids-dissidents.blogspot.com/...this-blog.html

From Mr. Lier himself.

Con man DaveyBoy. Great imagination but a touch mad and very corrupt.

Can YOU spare him a dime?

"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in
news:f2d5c0fbe4560fbe55002be9bd3b5f5c@localhost.ta lkabouthealt
hnetwork.com:

However it is an overall assessment and not the full
conclusion which is posted below, for those who care. Readers
can easily see who is concealing the truth here.

From the PDF reports summary pp i-ii.
Assessment of the Data
In general, the Panel found the published epidemiology
literature to be inadequate to definitively answer the
question posed to the workshop participants. Most studies
reviewed did not employ a prospective design, which is the
optimal method to assess the effectiveness of condoms in
preventing infection.
Conclusions on STDs Transmitted by Genital Secretions
The published data documenting effectiveness of the male
condom were strongest for HIV. The Panel concluded that, based
on a meta-analysis of published studies “always” users of the
male condom significantly reduced the risk of HIV infection in
men and women. These data provided strong evidence for the
effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission in
both men and women who engage in vaginal intercourse.
The Panel also concluded that the consistency of findings
across four epidemiological studies of gonorrhea indicated
that the latex male condom could reduce the risk of gonorrhea
for men.
The strongest evidence for potential effectiveness of condoms
on other STDs transmitted by genital secretions (i.e.
gonorrhea in women, chlamydial infection and trichomoniasis)
was the laboratory-based studies on the properties of the male
latex condom and the strength of the evidence for condom use
reducing the risk of HIV transmission in men and women and
gonorrhea in men. The Panel concluded, however, 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.
Conclusions on Genital Ulcer Diseases
The Panel agreed that the published epidemiologic data were
insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about the
effectiveness of the latex male condom to reduce the risk of
transmission of genital ulcer diseases (genital herpes,
syphilis and chancroid).
Conclusions on HPV
For HPV, the Panel concluded that there was no epidemiologic
evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection,
but study results did suggest that condom use might afford
some protection in reducing the risk of HPV-associated
diseases, including warts in men and cervical neoplasia in
women.
Summary
The Panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions
reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should
not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of
the condom to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV
transmission in men and women and gonorrhea in men. To
definitely answer the remaining questions about condom
effectiveness for preventing STD infections will require well-
designed and ethically sound clinical studies.

Ahh, thanks Paul King for promoting my need of money

Spare me a dime? A quater? How bout a few bucks?

Thanks to you, you remind me to post my cash gift link:

http://www.poz.ca/donate-paypal.htm

Pay me to harass Paul King

Summary
"The Panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected
inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as
proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of
STDs other than HIV transmission in men and women and gonorrhea in men. To
definitely answer the remaining questions about condom effectiveness for
preventing STD infections will require well-designed and ethically sound
clinical studies."


I agree, the evidence is insufficient to say latex condoms are effective
or ineffective. But if they are not proven effective AND HAVE DEMONSTRABLE
HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR USE ALONG WITH CERTAIN BENZENE
CONTAINING LUBRICANTS... then until we have well-designed and ethically
sound clinical studies-- including consideration of co-causal factors that
Alternative Medicine seems more concerned about generally, such as toxins
we place into or next to our bodies, and the high socalled carrier rate of
those said to be infected with most common 'STI's who do not go on to
develop chronic symptoms or clear 'it' from their bodies naturally thus
calling into question the virus/germ model specifically-- the evidence is
insufficient that condoms and lubricants are EITHER SAFE OR EFFECTIVE.


Kelly Jon Landis


HIV/AIDS Alternative Views Forum on Delphi
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous

1,500+ members, 3,000+ visitors, 5,000+ messages

In article <c1425e2c3ed67bbc3beb30b06a32db70@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
KellyJonLandis <kjlandis@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
Note the line above that I capitalized. There must be a name for the
psychiatric condition that causes a person with otherwise normal vision
not to see what is in front of him if it contradicts his strongly held
beliefs.

Your eyes also skipped over the following without seeing it:

"The Panel concluded that, based on a meta-analysis of published
studies “always” users of the male condom significantly reduced
the risk of HIV infection in men and women. These data provided
strong evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV
transmission in both men and women who engage in vaginal intercourse."

--
David Canzi "Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find
a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a
nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity."
-- Eric Hoffer

"Ahh, thanks Paul King for promoting my need of money"

My pleasure. I may send you something myself.