

Condoms not effective against HPV or herpes - heeton
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Condoms-not-effective-against-HPV-or-herpes-3650285.php

======
dotBen
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
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
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
Asymptomatic shedding. Yes, absolutely terrifying. It's also possible to have
HSV and not know because you've never had an outbreak.

------
xofer
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.

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

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

~~~
eli
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
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
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
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
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.

------
hartator
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."

------
adrianlmm
> 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
Assuming your partner is also not promiscuous

~~~
tormeh
And because of the friendship paradox, your partner probably is.

~~~
adrianlmm
Not in my experience.

~~~
otterley
"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
Neather yours, besites, I'm talking about non promiscuous persons here
(including the partner).

~~~
Nursie
And you're still wrong.

~~~
adrianlmm
How come?

