Pope 'publicly distorted' condom science: Lancet

[Digitonomy]

It keeps coming.

One of the world’s top medical journals accused Pope Benedict XVI on Friday of having distorted scientific evidence in his remarks on condom use and demanded he make a retraction.

“By saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue,” The Lancet said in an editorial.

"Whether the Pope’s error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear.
Source

 

[redrosetea]

The UK is one place I would never expect to get the unvarnished truth…They are about the biggest Catholic bashers on the planet

 

[dfroom208]

Christian’s have the only 100% effective way to stop the spread of HIV. It’s rediculous that they are lambasted so much. The world is so addicted to frivolous sex.

 

[Jon_S]

The UK is one place I would never expect to get the unvarnished truth…They are about the biggest Catholic bashers on the planet

Some HIV expert from Harvard already corroborated the Pope’s comments anyway. No retraction necessary.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/marchweb-only/111-53.0.html

 

[Darryl1958]

There is never any substance to these stories. We are not given what the medical journal objects to specifically, what evidence they have that what he says is against science, or anything that can be corroborated.

Instead, on faith that this is a leading medical journal, we are expected to defer to their decision against the pope.

If the condom is properly manufactured, if people use them every time, if the availability of a condom does not lead to a false sense of security and more risk-taking behavior, if greater condom distribution and acceptance does not lead to more promiscuity in a culture, if, if, if, then in those theoretical circumstances the pope could be said to being unscientific. Like procreative sperm, the membrane of a condom decreases the chance of passage of the HIV virus and AIDS.

I don;t think that the pope would disagree. Indeed, if the Catholic church disagreed, then their objection to the condom on the grounds of procreation would be wrong-headed too.
but it is precisely because the condom is an effective barrier to all exchange of fluid, diseased or otherwise, that the Church objects in the first place.

In terms or population though, the laboratory conditions where all the mitigating 'ifs" are accounted for does not happen in real life.

The grounds upon which a medical journal might object have not even been addressed in the OP article, let alone give any evidence at all in terms of refuatation.

As it stands, it is purely political opinion, with no grounds in science.

 

[RobbyS]

There is never any substance to these stories. We are not given what the medical journal objects to specifically, what evidence they have that what he says is against science, or anything that can be corroborated.

Instead, on faith that this is a leading medical journal, we are expected to defer to their decision against the pope.

If the condom is properly manufactured, if people use them every time, if the availability of a condom does not lead to a false sense of security and more risk-taking behavior, if greater condom distribution and acceptance does not lead to more promiscuity in a culture, if, if, if, then in those theoretical circumstances the pope could be said to being unscientific. Like procreative sperm, the membrane of a condom decreases the chance of passage of the HIV virus and AIDS.

I don;t think that the pope would disagree. Indeed, if the Catholic church disagreed, then their objection to the condom on the grounds of procreation would be wrong-headed too.
but it is precisely because the condom is an effective barrier to all exchange of fluid, diseased or otherwise, that the Church objects in the first place.

In terms or population though, the laboratory conditions where all the mitigating 'ifs" are accounted for does not happen in real life.

The grounds upon which a medical journal might object have not even been addressed in the OP article, let alone give any evidence at all in terms of refuatation.

As it stands, it is purely political opinion, with no grounds in science.

Bravo! Lancet pretends to be objective when behind the words is a false claim to preeminent power.

 

[Darryl1958]

Bravo! Lancet pretends to be objective when behind the words is a false claim to preeminent power.

I see the Lancet as engaging in propaganda. to the extent that it turns people away from the message of the pope and a reinvigoration in our faith in monogamous marriage, the only institution with a proven track record against the spread of venereal disease, then it is the Lancet that is being irresponsible. It is the Lancet, and the faith of the secular orthodoxy that is exacerbating the AIDS problem and putting untold millions of more people at risk.

Like all of life’s questions, it is more a question of value than it is about the science of cellular processes. To the extent that scientitsts continue to believe that anything that cannot be measured is therefore meaningless, the very lack of values of such scientists will continue to make them very dangerous leaders of any society.