When this guy doesn't provide a link, there's usually a good reason.

Two "quotes" from Mr King.

*****
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.

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


The actual original wording reads:

******
At a Washington, D.C., news conference, the 10,000-member Physicians
Consortium claimed that the CDC has known for years that while condoms
are 85 percent effective in helping prevent the spread of HIV, they
offer less protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as
gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis and genital herpes.

While finding that latex condoms can be effective in preventing the
spread of HIV and in protecting men from contracting gonorrhea from a
female partner, the NIH panel concluded that there was "insufficient
evidence" that condoms protect against other STDs.
******

What was wrong with the extra words Paul? Too uncomfortable for you?
You're a lying little shit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,30376,00.html

Bennett

I excluded this politically correct nonsense as it is so stupid that
ignoring it is all one can do.

Even a five year old can see that if a condom cannot stop a bacterial std
it is quite impossible for it to block something hundreds of times
smaller.

It is like saying the cat door is too small for a mouse to get through but
the cat can pass through it with no trouble.

INSANE. QUITE INSANE!

I have read most of the 138 studies reviewed by the FDA and the majority
DID NOT SAY CONDOMS WERE PROTECTION AGAINST HIV.

This nonsense was written into the FDA report for political reasons an
deserves to be ignored.

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."

For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but
this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses and
even of the bacterium Chylamidia.

Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we
find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models
don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded by
a condom.

That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms as
barriers to infectious disease.

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301...doms/Text.html

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:25:24 -0500, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

How big is a molecule of water?

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:26:13 -0500, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

How big is a molecule of air?

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:29:07 -0500, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

How big is a water molecule? 5 mm??? 6 mm????? gosh

"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:c894851c46c024801cf2b8453af554c6@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Wait just one minute Paul, you site above that "Electron microscopy reveals
the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size" yet you have claimed
repeatedly in other posts that HIV has never been isolated and never been
photographed via Electron microscopy. Which statement is the truth and which
is a lie Paul?

Gary Stein

Micrometer you fool, not millimeter

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:45:07 -0500, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

What?
or do you mean a molecule of water is 5 micrometers in size??
What???

"PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message
The Daisy BB is 5 mms.

Are you both really so stupid. The measurement is micrometers NOT
millimeters.

I don't know why I waste time even replying to such stupid people.

Even a retard would know the University of Texas is not talking about
millimeters in this context.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:39:57 -0500, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

A water molecule is 5 mu-m??

Gosh.

What is surface tension? What could it mean???

Well then Paul, maybe you shouldn't cut and paste so much, cos it's
obvious that the font change is the reason ) Try exercising a little
intelligence for a change.

I'm have no doubt the point was simply to ridicule your post, not the
mm/um difference.

Try proof-reading next time.

Bennett

It's when water molecules get close enough to the surface to be worried
about evaporating away.

"Oh no, I'm floatiiiinnnngggg......."

Maybe Paul thinks that hydrogen-bonds are some kind of investment.

)

Bennett

On 19 Mar 2005 08:01:22 -0800, "Bennett" <njb35@cantab.net> wrote:

ROFLMAO!

"I'm have no doubt the point was simply to ridicule your post, not the
mm/um difference."

Seems it backfired!

Perhaps you think a millimeter is a micrometer.

Sad attempt to cover up the egg on your face.

Better to have simply shut up.