I was reading the news instead, and I came across an article titled, "Condoms proven to protect against virus." Of course, we're talking about HPV. With this new vaccine, and because I was just talking about condoms and HPV earlier this week, I was curious.
Readers are greeted with this lovely graphic:
It makes me feel sooo good! Look how few have infections when their partner used condoms 100% of the time.
And, look! Look at the second paragraph of the article:
"A three-year study of female college students — all virgins at the start — found that women whose partners always wore a condom during sex were 70 percent less likely to become infected with the human papilloma virus, or HPV, than those whose partners used protection less than 5 percent of the time."
And the article continues to to have Drs. and Researchers and the U of Washington and the New England Journal of Medicine talking about how great, great, Great this is for woman-kind.
And then this little line farts all over how great this is supposed to be:
"Twelve of the 42 women who said their partners always used condoms became infected. " That's 28.5% (!?!?)
Let's go back. Look at the graphic. It soothes. It reassures.
Wait, no. We're not looking at percentages. We're looking at incidences. The number of women in each group. We have no clue how large the groups are. The rates of infection, to be realistic, could very well be the same. Or, and I really digress here, the differences could be statistically insignificant. Especially if the groups are drastically different in size. The pretty graphic is fluff, and so is the article, to the best of our knowledge. Condoms, when used 100% of the time by a partner, still result in almost 30% of women (who started the study of only 3 years as virgins) becoming infected with HPV. The article includes excuses, if you're interested, but I'm peeved about the fluff reporting and the fluff graphic and the wet fluff that my excitement and my naive hope has become.
On a side note, did anyone else notice that only 82 women participated in the study and there were 122 - One HUNDRED and twenty-two - HPV infections? Will someone explain how we should be happy that these women were evidentially RE-Infected in a scant 3 years, with condom use? (?!?!?)
Oh, wait could that mean . . . that it is NOT simply sexually transmitted? HHHMMMM!?!? Grrr.
Or, it could mean that the publication is being made in an effort to support the power of condoms while the real scientists are hoping that the critical reader will think, "WTF?" The New York Times recently published an article saying "SSRIs Work!" and then went on to report that there was a 1% difference in recovery rates between individuals on SSRIs and individuals not taking anything. To me, that says, "if you don't read this article, then our sponsors will be happy. If you're smart and read it, though, you know that we wish we didn't have to say that."
Two of the other things I wonder about are:
1. Transmission besides gential-genital contact. How often does a male partner run the virus all over his hands when putting the condom on, not wash them, and proceed to touch his partner's genitals with HPV on his hands? If this happens a fraction of the time, education will reduce transmission quite easily. Or, what about non-gentially located warts. I've heard quite a few different things about whether or not those can or can't lead to HPV infections.
2. Female condoms. The virus is not transmitted through fluids (it's transmitted through contact with the virus. A woman can get the virus from her partner with condom use if only part of his genitals, and consequently only part of HPV carrying area, is covered. Female condoms cover much of a woman's vulva, and so I wonder if they would reduce some of the transmission (because male condoms leave much of the vulva and testicles exposed and free to touch.
Just some thoughts.
Also, Mara, I really wish that such a possibility/reality would be explored more by science at large. Although we definitely need much more testing and research for the HPV vaccine, I think that it would be far more accepted (and far more available for women's health) if HPV weren't thought of in a one-dimensional, sexual way. Part of the controversy with the vaccine is the belief (and I don't think I need to tell you to whom it belongs) that HPV is God's punishment for sleeping around, or marrying someone who has. Uhm... yeah. Sound like Gay-Plague to anyone else? How horrible. And this is all directed at women; for whatever reason, men seem to be fairly overlooked. De-sexualizing the virus and its transmission could really help to destigmatize it and to make adequate health care (condom use, GYN visits, and treatment/vaccination) all the more acceptable and available.
Hi guys! HPV takes on different forms. Three are cutaneous(skin) types such as plantar warts or common warts,and juvenile flat warts. A fourth type is sexually transmitted viral condyloma acuminata. Those varieties of the fourth group, types 16 and 18 are believed to be causes of uterine and cervical cancers( as well as vaginal, vulvar, anal and penile squamous cell cancer). In considering all viral infections one must also look for 'helper' viruses. A virus may or may not be effective. If a helper virus is coincidental to this type of virus, the virus can then enter human cells and reproduce more effectively. If only it were simple we could do something about it. Viruses are capable of changing their non-human markers so that our immune systems cannot fight them. It is why flu virus types need new vaccines all the time.
It is disappointing when science is reported in a half-assed manner in a public journal or newsmedia. I think one must find the source of the information and try to get the real data and the precedural dialogues, especially the peer revues. Without it one is frustrated by the lack of coordination of facts and media messaging.
Good luck, because understanding social medicine is a huge undertaking.
The results of improving masses of peoples lives is well worth the effort. Those who can effect change in society are special to all who associate with them.
I read the article and it WAS rather disappointing. It really doesn't make much sense to me. I feel like there must be a mistake in their data or some sort of miscommunication. It really does look like many girls must have had the diseaese repeatedly. It would have been more useful to know how many girls were infected rather than how many times lesions occurred or infections flared.
Self selecting data, I'd guess.
Mara, could you send me the link to the SSRIs article?
Sorry, Nae, I suppose I could google 'SSRIs' and find out what they are, but I don't know what they are, nor do I know to which article you are referring. I think Mendon is the one who mentioned the New York Times' article on, uh, them.