Harvard academic agrees with the Pope that higher condom availability increases the prevalence of HIV.

http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2009/03/26/harvard_research_proves_the_pope_and_god_right

Very dubious. I want way more information before I will believe this load. Especially in light of Australia's successful anti aids campaigns.

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics" would appear to cover that.
Since condom usage is spectacularly low among the uneducated it's rather drawing a long bow to claim they're ineffective, or worse.
They are merely one part of the overall strategy, it works in other places, it would seem to fail in Africa and Asia only because of the low education rate among the general population.

They said that about the pill as well -
until they found out that the uneducated
were using the pill as 'suppositories.'

So, I guess as far as condoms go - it
depends on what appendage you wear them.
On your nose ... - of course they won't work!

Wasting your time TRUTHNOW. The lefties have only ever accepted research that confirms their dogmas and allows them to live guilt free lives no matter how perverse. With more education and sex propaganda being shoved down kids throats then previously we have more disease and unwanted pregnancies than ever before. The simple fact is that those who can't control their urges want to make it sound impossible for a man and a woman to be faithful to each other for life. They know this is the most healthy thing for themselves and kids but want to indulge and use and be used for sexual gratification. More education is the mantra from those who have no self control and are bound by lust. A little teaching on self control would save a huge number of people from a huge amount of heartache as shown by your article.

The article TRUTHNOW78 links to contains "god" in the title, so I was hardly surprised by the highly selective quoting to follow.

If you read Green's full comments you'll notice, for instance, "that only 4.4 percent of the population reported consistent usage in the previous year, a rate that is probably typical of much of Africa."

People aren't using condoms, therefore condoms don't work?

You'll probably notice that neither Australia nor Europe is suffering an AIDS pandemic, despite our heathen secular ways. That's because of condoms.

Back to the drawing board, my fundamentalist friends. This one's a red herring.

Dear runner,

Who exactly are you talking about?
The Pope?

May I suggest that if you want to be
credible - name names - because on OLO -
you know very little about the backgrounds
of the people who post, and what they do or do
not believe in.

Generalisations - don't account for individual
points of view or people. For example, just
because you claim to be religious - we don't
make the assumption that you're a right-wing,
narrow minded fanatic. That would be most
ungracious.

Return the favour to others - if you want to
retain credibility.

Apart from the title of this troll-thread being a load of old cobblers, my question is this:

Will TRUTHNOW78 actually deign to respond to the contributions to his/her/its topics?

If not (as has become his/her/its custom) could I please request to my fellow OLOers to refrain from further posts until TRUTHNOW78 does display the respect and courtesy of contributing to its own topics.

Fractelle

While I didn't intend to contribute anyway, I fully support your post.This poster reminds me of a small kid who plays that game of ringing the doorbell and then running away to watch from behind a nearby hedge as the householder responds!

I, like you, think it inappropriate behaviour which does not warrant response.

I strongly suspect TRUTHNOW78 is a sock-puppet for one the regular posters. He starts a thread with one alias, then posts to it with another (or several others) to make it seem that his argument has more support than it really does.

"There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates."
Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E
I've noticed that the standard form of response to discussions that challenge some people's prejudices seems to be ad hominem attacks, accusations of trolling and calls for others to boycott the discussion.
Can't we do better than this?
As for the education factor, why then is syphilis on the rise among educated Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Southern California, Miami, and New York City homosexuals?
http://www.hiv.gov.gy/hp_sti_sym_fs.php

KMB - the increased rate of AIDS among homosexuals is more likely to be because they're not using condoms as there's no fear of pregnancy.

Effectively, your last point shoots your stance in the foot.

I'm also boycotting the discussion from here on in and agree with Fractelle and Romany. It's not because I disagree with Truthnow, it's because he/or she doesn't show the respect to respond to any topics he creates. He only creates topics then runs away.

So it's a boycott on the grounds of manners, not politics. Similarly, runner never shows the slightest sign of respecting other views, constantly vilifying the views of 'secularists' which he's even been known to call 'earth-worshippers.'

According to him, every problem in the world can be chalked up to people not following catholic dogma, although strangely, he claims he's not catholic. Never a hint of compassion or understanding for people who don't see the world exactly as he does.

Plus, Truthnow tends to pick spurious sources and never dignifies the challenges to their validity with a response.

The very definition of a troll, KMB.

P.S.
Even prominent Catholics are shying away from the pope's recent idiocy. In fact, the church itself edited his comments after the fact, in order to tone them down. They actually changed the words, which casts doubts on his supposed infallibity, it would seem.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25212024-26040,00.html

Foxy, for most religious people I don't assume they're a narrow minded fanatic.
Unless they are incapable of showing any sign they're reasonable. Take a look at runner's litany of posts and if you can come across one that isn't harsh and judgemental, then I'll concede he mightn't be a fanatic, otherwise, all evidence points to the contrary.

This is a hugely important issue. Even more importantly, ideology has no place in AIDS interventions when it interferes with rigorous evidence-based practice. For anyone who is inclined to continue participating here, it would be wise to note the pope’s exact quote, and then to read Green in his own words.

Pope: "[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be
overcome by money alone, and that cannot be
overcome through the distribution of condoms,
which even aggravates the problems."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5923927.ece

Green:
“Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom.
All people should have full access to condoms, and
condoms should always be a backup strategy for
those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually
faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004
"consensus statement" published and endorsed by
some 150 global AIDS experts, including
representatives the United Nations, World Health
Organization and World Bank.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

While conceding that in some limited circumstances the pope may have a point, Green argues very strongly that every evidence-based means available should be used to combat AIDS. This is very different to what the pope was saying.

Green’s most recent peer-reviewed publication appears to have been in 2006:
Green EC. Halperin DT. Nantulya V. Hogle JA. Uganda's HIV prevention success: the role of sexual behavior change and the national response. [Journal Article] AIDS & Behavior. 10(4):335-46; discussion 347-50, 2006 Jul.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1544373

The abstract makes it plain that ideological texts like the one quoted in the opening post of this discussion are not helping: “…the debate over “what happened in Uganda” continues, often involving divisive abstinence-versus-condoms rhetoric, which appears more related to the culture wars in the USA than to African social reality.”

In the article itself, Green and his co-authors find that the data strongly support the use of multiple interventions, including “empowering women, mobilizing PLWAs and involving them in prevention, fighting stigma, involving faith-based organizations.” It doesn’t help much when those faith-based organisations respond by cherry-picking the solutions that suit them, and attempting to discredit all the evidence-based solutions that don't.

Maxamillion
They are merely one part of the overall strategy, it works in other places, it would seem to fail in Africa and Asia only because of the low education rate among the general population.

You only need to look at the conditions they live in.

I recon, esspecially in Asia, if the did use them they would want to get at least a couple of uses out of them or they would feel ripped off.

Not controlling the spread of HIV could have other consequences. One that seems to be emerging is that an immunocompromised population can serve as a repository for other diseases. This seems to be happening with tuberculosis. How diseases will behave in such populations is unknown. So putting ideology before efficacy may threaten the chaste and virtuous as well as the fornicating heathens.