Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbncc5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.med,net.singles
Subject: Re: Answer to AIDS questions
Message-ID: <67@bbncc5.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Nov-85 01:42:07 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncc5.67
Posted: Fri Nov 22 01:42:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 10:52:24 EST
References: <3014@sun.uucp>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22
Xref: linus net.motss:2033 net.med:2654 net.singles:8691

I think the advise to rely on agents containing nonoxynol-9 or, of all
things, peroxide, is simply illadvised, bad folk-medicine, something we
certainly don't need right now when it comes to AIDS.  There are lots of
agents which inactivate viruses in vitro, but which turn out to be ineffective
or deleterious when used in vivo.  I am repeating myself here (I addressed this
several months ago) but Will's recommendations require this:

There is no evidence that nonoxynol-9 spermicides or lubricants have any
effect on the spread of HTLV-3 infection.  Ditto for peroxide.  Nonoxynol-9
is a detergent, and for all we know, it might facilitate its spread through
some strange surface-active effect on mucous membranes.  Peroxide is
immediately broken down by catalase, ubiquitous in the body, and it's a
weak antiseptic agent by any standards.  The point is, we just don't know
the effects of these (or any other) agents as prophylactic measures against
infection, and it is downright irresponsible to give the impression that
there is anything but uneducated guessing behind it.  Better to not be
exposed at all, by the use of condoms, TRUE safe-sex practices where there
is no chance of exchanging fluids, or abstinence.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA