http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080204.html
Before anyone points this out... yes I know it's a left wing posting. The information seems sound. At least, I know for sure that certain facts presented are 100% accurate.
The part I'm posting this for starts about the middle of the article and goes to the bottom. It's a semi quick read.
Thoughts?
- LovingKayla
- 02-08-2012, 10:49 AM
- Iaintliein
- 02-08-2012, 11:34 AM
I'm sure this stuff had to have passed bio and cyto testing at FDA. I've never seen the testing run, but I think this is done statically (no motion and therefore no friction).
Laboratory testing used to predict real world performance of materials and chemicals is actually pretty lousy despite huge amounts of time, energy, and money being spent on improving them. This appears to be one of those cases when "anything is better than nothing" as far as the false sense of security imparted by FDA testing was simply wrong. FDA may mean well, but some of the stuff they do is just plain dumb, with far more attention paid to proper record keeping than determining if something actually will perform as needed.
It's good to discuss this from time to time here. I remember a thread some time ago (maybe the old board) in which a provider posted that she only used "natural" condoms, which, of course, provide virtually no protection from STDs.
Laboratory testing used to predict real world performance of materials and chemicals is actually pretty lousy despite huge amounts of time, energy, and money being spent on improving them. This appears to be one of those cases when "anything is better than nothing" as far as the false sense of security imparted by FDA testing was simply wrong. FDA may mean well, but some of the stuff they do is just plain dumb, with far more attention paid to proper record keeping than determining if something actually will perform as needed.
It's good to discuss this from time to time here. I remember a thread some time ago (maybe the old board) in which a provider posted that she only used "natural" condoms, which, of course, provide virtually no protection from STDs.