l11searchs Questions asearchcsearch212An Discoveraboutlove Qe Questions t Factor o And s 981 Factor 981 nsearch% Questions 0searchz And n12
Were these people using condoms? That seems to be a rather important detail that this article left out completely.
Thats the kind of news one needs to read first thing in the morning. if it is "news" at all.
What a poorly written piece of scare tactics! Mr. Maugh and the LA Times should be ashamed for such poor writing - have they no idea of how to review a piece of scientific research? Furthermore, there is inadequate information given to access the original research information in order to evaluate the findings for myself.
Clearly the quality of ingredients in lubricants make a big difference; trained sexuality educators have known this for a long time. There are also significant risks associated with not using lubricants. And, as other commenters have noted, we have no information about other potentially important variables like condom use or frequency of anal intercourse. Instead, HIV is mentioned at the opening to grab our attention, yet none of the research teams mentioned have even applied their studies to HIV risk yet.
Mr. Maugh, are you seriously suggesting that we go without anal lubricant with this one sided article and assume the risks that go with such a decision? Your unethical writing is inexcusable and I have encouraged my readers to recognize it as such at my blog.
There's a LOT of information missing from this article regarding these 'studies'... come on, be a proper, responsible, ethical journalist, please.
The size of the sample group is far too small to give any acurate results.
Substances such as Nonoxyl-9 have been shown to highly damaging to delicate internal tissues.
There is no way I'd want a biocide (essentially a diluted poison) of of any form added to lube.
The effect of common lubes on natural internal fauna is worth noting. The ideal would be nill impact on natural bacteria, that does not tend to act as a medium for the growth and transferal of bacteria.
And as stated - Use Condoms
One explanation could be that those who use lubricants engage in the activity more often (since it's more comfortable that way), hence increasing their chances of contracting something. In other words, nothing in this article suggests that the study controlled for frequency of the activity. Yet another bit of salient information omitted from this piece. Also, no discussion in the article of what risks lubricant can alleviate.
Did lubricants increase the risk of vaginal infection with gonorrhea and chlamydia?
It's interesting to note here that when my Doctor does a rectal exam he uses KY and has used it for as long as i can remember. If its ok to use by a doctor for a rectal exam and he has no concerns about uisng it....then something is amiss with this report...
As a few others stated, there is no mention of condoms in the study. And were (the women at least) having vaginal sex as well during the time of the study? How do they know infections weren't shared that way instead? Also agree that the test group was awfully small.
I always use Boy Butter Lubricants.
Since the lack of lubrication is often painful, I would surmise that those who used lube probably had anal sex more often, thus increasing the likelihood for acquiring infection(2). And, does rectal bacteria, beneficial or otherwise, really affect transmission of STD/HIV? This all sounds hokey!
| Advertisement |
|
|