|WikiProject Pharmacology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
what th heck
Th heck to you too, buddy --TheDoober 07:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, this doesn't make any sense. At the end, it says that there's a recommendation that nonox-9 condoms not be used for prevention of HIV infection. As I understand the argument, nonox-9 alone increases risk of infection due to abrasive effects, whereas condoms without nonox-9 are still acknowledged as the most effective anti-HIV method. Well, I have no understanding of how (a) the employment of nonox-9 WITH a condom could *increase* infection risk, provided that the condom doesn't break, let alone how (b) the use of nonox-9 WITH a condom carries a higher risk of HIV infection and/or (especially) pregnancy, which the article implies. It would seem that if the condom doesn't break, the risk associated with abrasion is eliminated, and given that, that the increased function of spermicide would minimize any risk of pregnancy due to post-coital spillage from the bottom of the condom. But hey, this is just me being reasonable.
- Pregnancy risk isn't part of the HIV discussion (and nobody's implying that N-9 increases pregnancy risk), so let's just talk about the difference between using an N-9 condom and a non-N-9 condom for HIV. In either case, the only way that HIV is transmitted is if the virus leaves the condom. In either case, the only way that the partner becomes infected is if it passes into their body. However, if somebody's been using N-9, then the membranes of the vaginal wall (or wherever the condom is being used) may be broken down somewhat; they will be more broken down than if they haven't been using N-9. That's why there's an increased risk of infection: it's easier for the virus (which sometimes escapes the condom in practice) to enter the body. --Piquan (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- In the 1980's/early 90's The conventional wisdom was that N9 tended to inactivate the HIV virus and therefore its use was beneficial in reducing the possibility of HIV transmission. It was subsequently found that its effect as an (albeit usually fairly mild) skin irritant outweighed its beneficial effect and actually increaced the possibility of HIV transmission. This used to be mentioned in the article but someone removed it (possibly over citation issues) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC).
The section on other spermicides is rather poor. I will resist making changes since I don't know enough but it describes 2 alternatives (unless you count lactic acid), however the spermicides section lists 3. Furthermore it claims only octoxynol-9 is available in the US. This seems rather odd, is this really true? In any case, the spermicide section calls it octoxynol-8. A quick google suggests 9 is the correct one but someone who knows better needs to correct this. Finally the phrasing is rather poor. What the heck does, chemically speaking mean? I would guess whoever wrote this is trying to say there are 2 other recognised spermicides. It would be better to discuss medically recognised and commercially available spermicides rather then 'chemically speaking' Nil Einne 11:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think 'chemically speaking' might be standing in for 'in terms of active ingredients' here - looked at in terms of brands or formulations there are *dozens* of spermicides available, but all based on just a few active ingredients. It could do with more clarity, though. --Calair 12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
So I bought some analgesic spray (Bactine, to be precise) and decided to look up the one inactive ingredient I wasn't already familiar with - and lo and behold it's a spermicide! The article does mention that N-9 has many other uses, but the article seems to focus entirely upon its use as a spermicide. I can make some uneducated guesses as to what purposes it serves in cosmetics, but it would be really nice if someone educated could update the article with this information. I'd also appreciate some information regarding the health risks associated with its other uses - especially the effects of skin exposure.---Puff (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)