6 ms·

Condoms not effective against HPV or herpes

40 points by heeton 12y ago

adrianlmm 12y ago
> Experts say being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable If you are promiscuous of course, for those who don't the chance is almost cero.
- joshbaptiste 12y ago
  Assuming your partner is also not promiscuous
  - adrianlmm 12y ago
    Of course.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    And because of the friendship paradox, your partner probably is.
    - adrianlmm 12y ago
      Not in my experience.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        What makes you think your partners would tell you if they were promiscuous?
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        Becase I've only had one partner, my wife, and because I've been his only partnert also, 10 years of marriage.
        tormeh 12y ago
        You're again depending on your partner being truthful. That's fine, but assuming people are truthful is horrible science. Statistically speaking, 50% of everyone cheat on their partners. The number that serves some white lie about their sexual history is probably way higher.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        You are right, is not only trust, but visits every six months to the gynecologists (something every woman past 30 should do) confirms it. > but assuming people are truthful is horrible science Is not even science, but what are we? robots?
        tormeh 12y ago
        That's why I said it was fine.
      - otterley 12y ago
        "Your experience" is not a good substitute for epidemiology and behavioral statistics. When it comes to medicine, politics, morals, and presuppositions should be checked at the door.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        Neather yours, besites, I'm talking about non promiscuous persons here (including the partner).
        toothbrush 12y ago
        Ah, the true Scotsman argument!
        Nursie 12y ago
        And you're still wrong.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        How come?
    - svankmajer 12y ago
      OT: I didn't know about the friendship paradox phenomenon. Thanks for pointing it out.
- dalke 12y ago
  STDs don't all require sex in order to transmit. Consider Human cytomegalovirus, in the herpes family. http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html says that "Among every 100 adults in the United States, 50–80 are infected with CMV by the time they are 40 years old." Elsewhere the CDC says "The virus is generally passed from infected people to others through direct contact with body fluids, such as urine, saliva, or breast milk." and "If a woman is infected with CMV before becoming pregnant, the risk of passing the virus to her fetus is about 1 in 100." and "For pregnant women, the two most common exposures to CMV are through sexual contact and through contact with the urine and saliva of young children with CMV infection." In other words, kissing is a possible vector, as is breast feeding, and changing a baby's wet diaper. And that's only one STD virus. So no, the chance is not almost zero, even excluding joshbaptiste's observation.
  - adrianlmm 12y ago
    I know the facts, but the statement makes it look like we should just relax and embrace it "Oh, you know, the stats say you are gonna get it anyway", not in my experience.
    - dalke 12y ago
      You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? That doesn't speak well of your commenting style. The immediately preceding line was "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already."
      - adrianlmm 12y ago
        > You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? What wrong things? > "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Of course, there is a lot of missinformation, still, how does that contradict my statement? > Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already." Well exactly, but my statement was the not promiscuous have almost cero possibility, not that they won't get it. >That doesn't speak well of your commenting style Neather of your comprehension abilities.
- tunesmith 12y ago
  It's a statistical statement that is valid against a group and not necessarily against an individual. Kind of like how racial demographics are important when analyzing segments of society, while racial profiling is not fine to apply against the guy that just drove past your parked police cruiser. So, "being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable" is a valid but somewhat clumsy way of saying that in general, people will be exposed to STDs. But it's not saying that you, the individual person reading this will inevitably be exposed, and nor is it saying that your individual spouse/partner is probably lying about their sexual history.
- readme 12y ago
  Wrong. If you marry and have sex with one female you've still got a good chance that she's at least got HPV. Unless maybe she's a virgin. In which case there's even a chance she contracted one during childbirth or through some other means.
xofer 12y ago
There is but one relevant scientifically proven fact in the article (with no citation): "UCSF researchers have shown these viruses to be present on genital skin with no symptoms that might prompt diagnosis and treatment." Everything else relevant to the thesis is speculation and commentary.
dotBen 12y ago
There is no scientific proof Hep C can be sexually transmitted, many studies have concluded [0]. It's a little concerning the author of the article, an OB/GYN doctor, is asserting otherwise. My British education, from the 90's, taught me the risks of HSV and HPV transmission occurring despite barrier methods (condoms). I'm assuming seeing as this is being voted up that this isn't something taught in America? [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15128350 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15128350
- refurb 12y ago
  I'm somewhat surprised that this is not common knowledge in the US. I think if you're in the medical field it's common knowledge, but not among non-medical people. The explanation is simple, herpes and hpv can exist on skin not covered by a condom, thus it can still be transmitted.
  - antidaily 12y ago
    It was taught that way to me in sex ed class (in the US); you can get herpes from skin conact with a condom and no signs of sores. Needless to say, we were all terrified.
    - sjtgraham 12y ago
      Asymptomatic shedding. Yes, absolutely terrifying. It's also possible to have HSV and not know because you've never had an outbreak.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dalke 12y ago
  That paper is from 2004. The right-hand side links to a paper from 2013 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23175457 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23175457 , which says "The efficiency of hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission by sexual activity remains controversial. We conducted a cross-sectional study of HCV-positive subjects and their partners to estimate the risk for HCV infection among monogamous heterosexual couples." They found that "Viral isolates in three couples (0.6%) were highly related, consistent with transmission of virus within the couple." This can be from non-sexual means, so this places an upper bound on the transmission rate; that being "approximately one per 190,000 sexual contacts." Indeed, it's very rare, if it does happen. However, that paper is titled "Sexual transmission of hepatitis C virus among monogamous heterosexual couples", and the paper you linked to was also for heterosexual couples. What about men who have sex with men? The paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24669911 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24669911 says "Outbreaks of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have been reported in HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) in North America, Europe and Asia. Transmission is believed to be the result of exposure to blood during sexual contact." In the US context, the US Centers for Disease Control, at http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/c/CFAQ.htm http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/c/CFAQ.htm , says "Less commonly, a person can also get Hepatitis C virus infection through ... Having sexual contact with a person infected with the Hepatitis C virus", so I think it's perfectly acceptable for a US OB/GYN to follow their guidance.
tormeh 12y ago
Largely overlooked is that unprotected oral sex isn't really safe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease#Transmission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease#Tr...
jake_arms75 12y ago
There are many STIs worse than herpes. Find your condom size: http://luckybloke.com/pages/find-your-condom-size http://luckybloke.com/pages/find-your-condom-size and use quality condoms that don't distract from your enjoyment. (Especially helpful if you find condoms too loose or tight.) Better than gonorrhea or AIDS any day.
hartator 12y ago
So, we are back to this, hum: "Yet if we acquire a lifelong viral "souvenir" through sex, may it be from a person who is important forever. It's a minimal-regrets way to assess the value of a relationship before risking exposure. When it comes to viral STDs, the devil is in the details."
tunesmith 12y ago
Sheesh, I didn't even know it was possible for males to be vaccinated against HPV. How is that not a good idea?
- eli 12y ago
  It is a good idea. CDC recommends the vaccine for boys too: http://www.cdc.gov/Features/hpvvaccineboys/ http://www.cdc.gov/Features/hpvvaccineboys/
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    My understanding is your medical insurance won't cover this over a certain age though (27-28 if I recall correctly, I'm a 32 year old male).
    - eli 12y ago
      Makes sense. My understanding is that it is not effective in people over 26. Assuming you've been sexually active, it is very likely you already have HPV -- too late for a vaccine. That's why the CDC recommends it for 11-12 year olds.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        My understanding is that Gardasil (correct me if I'm wrong) inhibits 4 different strains of HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18), that there is no accurate test for HPV, and that I may not have been infected by all 4 strains. I've been kicking around the idea of just paying the $500-1000 out of pocket.
        eli 12y ago
        Well, it's not a terrible idea, but the FDA did not approve Gardasil for patients older than 26 because Merck was unable to document any actual reduction in cancers.

40 points by heeton 12y ago

> Experts say being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable If you are promiscuous of course, for those who don't the chance is almost cero.

joshbaptiste 12y ago
Assuming your partner is also not promiscuous
- adrianlmm 12y ago
  Of course.
- tormeh 12y ago
  And because of the friendship paradox, your partner probably is.
  - adrianlmm 12y ago
    Not in my experience.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      What makes you think your partners would tell you if they were promiscuous?
      - adrianlmm 12y ago
        Becase I've only had one partner, my wife, and because I've been his only partnert also, 10 years of marriage.
        tormeh 12y ago
        You're again depending on your partner being truthful. That's fine, but assuming people are truthful is horrible science. Statistically speaking, 50% of everyone cheat on their partners. The number that serves some white lie about their sexual history is probably way higher.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        You are right, is not only trust, but visits every six months to the gynecologists (something every woman past 30 should do) confirms it. > but assuming people are truthful is horrible science Is not even science, but what are we? robots?
        tormeh 12y ago
        That's why I said it was fine.
    - otterley 12y ago
      "Your experience" is not a good substitute for epidemiology and behavioral statistics. When it comes to medicine, politics, morals, and presuppositions should be checked at the door.
      - adrianlmm 12y ago
        Neather yours, besites, I'm talking about non promiscuous persons here (including the partner).
        toothbrush 12y ago
        Ah, the true Scotsman argument!
        Nursie 12y ago
        And you're still wrong.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        How come?
  - svankmajer 12y ago
    OT: I didn't know about the friendship paradox phenomenon. Thanks for pointing it out.
dalke 12y ago
STDs don't all require sex in order to transmit. Consider Human cytomegalovirus, in the herpes family. http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html says that "Among every 100 adults in the United States, 50–80 are infected with CMV by the time they are 40 years old." Elsewhere the CDC says "The virus is generally passed from infected people to others through direct contact with body fluids, such as urine, saliva, or breast milk." and "If a woman is infected with CMV before becoming pregnant, the risk of passing the virus to her fetus is about 1 in 100." and "For pregnant women, the two most common exposures to CMV are through sexual contact and through contact with the urine and saliva of young children with CMV infection." In other words, kissing is a possible vector, as is breast feeding, and changing a baby's wet diaper. And that's only one STD virus. So no, the chance is not almost zero, even excluding joshbaptiste's observation.
- adrianlmm 12y ago
  I know the facts, but the statement makes it look like we should just relax and embrace it "Oh, you know, the stats say you are gonna get it anyway", not in my experience.
  - dalke 12y ago
    You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? That doesn't speak well of your commenting style. The immediately preceding line was "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already."
    - adrianlmm 12y ago
      > You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? What wrong things? > "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Of course, there is a lot of missinformation, still, how does that contradict my statement? > Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already." Well exactly, but my statement was the not promiscuous have almost cero possibility, not that they won't get it. >That doesn't speak well of your commenting style Neather of your comprehension abilities.
tunesmith 12y ago
It's a statistical statement that is valid against a group and not necessarily against an individual. Kind of like how racial demographics are important when analyzing segments of society, while racial profiling is not fine to apply against the guy that just drove past your parked police cruiser. So, "being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable" is a valid but somewhat clumsy way of saying that in general, people will be exposed to STDs. But it's not saying that you, the individual person reading this will inevitably be exposed, and nor is it saying that your individual spouse/partner is probably lying about their sexual history.
readme 12y ago
Wrong. If you marry and have sex with one female you've still got a good chance that she's at least got HPV. Unless maybe she's a virgin. In which case there's even a chance she contracted one during childbirth or through some other means.

xofer 12y ago

There is but one relevant scientifically proven fact in the article (with no citation): "UCSF researchers have shown these viruses to be present on genital skin with no symptoms that might prompt diagnosis and treatment." Everything else relevant to the thesis is speculation and commentary.

dotBen 12y ago

There is no scientific proof Hep C can be sexually transmitted, many studies have concluded [0]. It's a little concerning the author of the article, an OB/GYN doctor, is asserting otherwise. My British education, from the 90's, taught me the risks of HSV and HPV transmission occurring despite barrier methods (condoms). I'm assuming seeing as this is being voted up that this isn't something taught in America? [0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15128350 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15128350

refurb 12y ago
I'm somewhat surprised that this is not common knowledge in the US. I think if you're in the medical field it's common knowledge, but not among non-medical people. The explanation is simple, herpes and hpv can exist on skin not covered by a condom, thus it can still be transmitted.
- antidaily 12y ago
  It was taught that way to me in sex ed class (in the US); you can get herpes from skin conact with a condom and no signs of sores. Needless to say, we were all terrified.
  - sjtgraham 12y ago
    Asymptomatic shedding. Yes, absolutely terrifying. It's also possible to have HSV and not know because you've never had an outbreak.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dalke 12y ago
That paper is from 2004. The right-hand side links to a paper from 2013 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23175457 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23175457 , which says "The efficiency of hepatitis C virus (HCV) transmission by sexual activity remains controversial. We conducted a cross-sectional study of HCV-positive subjects and their partners to estimate the risk for HCV infection among monogamous heterosexual couples." They found that "Viral isolates in three couples (0.6%) were highly related, consistent with transmission of virus within the couple." This can be from non-sexual means, so this places an upper bound on the transmission rate; that being "approximately one per 190,000 sexual contacts." Indeed, it's very rare, if it does happen. However, that paper is titled "Sexual transmission of hepatitis C virus among monogamous heterosexual couples", and the paper you linked to was also for heterosexual couples. What about men who have sex with men? The paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24669911 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24669911 says "Outbreaks of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have been reported in HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) in North America, Europe and Asia. Transmission is believed to be the result of exposure to blood during sexual contact." In the US context, the US Centers for Disease Control, at http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/c/CFAQ.htm http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/c/CFAQ.htm , says "Less commonly, a person can also get Hepatitis C virus infection through ... Having sexual contact with a person infected with the Hepatitis C virus", so I think it's perfectly acceptable for a US OB/GYN to follow their guidance.

tormeh 12y ago

Largely overlooked is that unprotected oral sex isn't really safe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease#Transmission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexually_transmitted_disease#Tr...

jake_arms75 12y ago

There are many STIs worse than herpes. Find your condom size: http://luckybloke.com/pages/find-your-condom-size http://luckybloke.com/pages/find-your-condom-size and use quality condoms that don't distract from your enjoyment. (Especially helpful if you find condoms too loose or tight.) Better than gonorrhea or AIDS any day.

hartator 12y ago

So, we are back to this, hum: "Yet if we acquire a lifelong viral "souvenir" through sex, may it be from a person who is important forever. It's a minimal-regrets way to assess the value of a relationship before risking exposure. When it comes to viral STDs, the devil is in the details."

tunesmith 12y ago

Sheesh, I didn't even know it was possible for males to be vaccinated against HPV. How is that not a good idea?

eli 12y ago
It is a good idea. CDC recommends the vaccine for boys too: http://www.cdc.gov/Features/hpvvaccineboys/ http://www.cdc.gov/Features/hpvvaccineboys/
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  My understanding is your medical insurance won't cover this over a certain age though (27-28 if I recall correctly, I'm a 32 year old male).
  - eli 12y ago
    Makes sense. My understanding is that it is not effective in people over 26. Assuming you've been sexually active, it is very likely you already have HPV -- too late for a vaccine. That's why the CDC recommends it for 11-12 year olds.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      My understanding is that Gardasil (correct me if I'm wrong) inhibits 4 different strains of HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18), that there is no accurate test for HPV, and that I may not have been infected by all 4 strains. I've been kicking around the idea of just paying the $500-1000 out of pocket.
      - eli 12y ago
        Well, it's not a terrible idea, but the FDA did not approve Gardasil for patients older than 26 because Merck was unable to document any actual reduction in cancers.