Last week I wrote about secularism I was trying to make three points:

1. secularism views faith as a matter of subjective opinion and therefore has no place in the political and social debate
2. secularism views itself as rational and basing its opinions on facts and/or scientific evidence
3. my point was, what secularism considers science based rationality, is in fact pseudo-science and just as subjective as faith. Or looking at it from the other point of view faith is based on just as much rational measurable experience as secular “rationality” is.

I would like to use here two examples: one from theoretical physics and the other from the distribution of condoms.

Theoretical Physics

I was reading the 25^th anniversary issue [1] of Discover magazine [2] which is a serious although popularizing science publication. One of the article, “Quantum Leap for Schools,” addressed the issue of physics in the high school curriculum. Lee Smolin, [3] a theoretical physicist, was saying that it is shameful to still teach 300 year old Newtonian physics. We should instead teach the fundamentals of quantum physics. The article went on predicting how students will be able to access mass spectrometers, electron microscopes, etc. I for one, I would agree one hundred percent on that statement.

For the conclusion of the article Smolin went on saying:

[...] “physics education, regarded by many as the foundation upon which all other science education should be laid, will be revamped to reflect our latest concept of ultimate reality. [...] In the 21^st century we regard quantum mechanics as the truest thing we have.”

Now, calling physics “our latest concept of ultimate reality” and “quantum mechanics as the truest thing we have” is very funny to me. I am imagining a 17 year old taking his girl friend for a romantic evening out to observe a sunset. But instead of going to the beach he breaks in the school science lab to show her the electromagnetic curves of a spectrograph.

Physics the ultimate reality? Come Onnnn..! Give me a break. This is an ontological absurdity. [4] Which reality do these scientists live in? Science is a rational approach to explaining and interpreting reality but it’s not reality. Sunsets are the same today as they were 100 million years ago. Science changes, theories evolve, [5] reality does not change. Which is more real, the beach or the spectrograph. Ask your girlfriend!

Secularism makes that ontological mistake [6] all the time. In that particular example it is really funny. But that mistake, misunderstanding science as reality, can have tragic effects especially when building social agendas around it. Medical statistical evidence of condom effectiveness is one of those tragic misconceptions.

Distribution of Condoms

There are more and more teen-age pregnancies. Young girls who become pregnant most often lose their chance for further education, their opportunities for a career, and become dependent on unemployment and social services. The worse is when they become at risk of contracting aids, passing it onto their babies, dying and leaving young orphans to be taken care by society. The distribution of condoms, secular wisdom says, can solve these problems. Protected with the use of condoms, there would be less pregnant teen-agers. Young girls would have educational opportunities, career choices and be positive contributors to society. Condoms would provide them with safe sex and we would stop the spread of the aids scourge. Don’t we all want our children to be safe and have social and career choices? What is wrong with that? Nothing, I say. It is true we all want our children to be safe and we want them to succeed in life. We want them to have the choices we did not have. No parent can deny that. But that is not the issue. The issue is: will the use of condoms achieve that goal?

Condoms, Pregnancy and AIDS

To answer the above question I went to the Planned Parenthood web site to see what they have to say about condom effectiveness. According to the web site all forms of contraception are effective to a greater or lesser degree. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Latex [7] condoms and abstinence seem to have the least disadvantages. Abstinence is 100% effective but you cannot use it whenever you want to have sex. Latex condoms are 98% effective when used properly and 85% effective in normal usage. [8] As far as preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STD) is concerned no contraceptive method is effective except latex condoms and abstinence. The statistics are the same as above.

I wanted to have confirmation of those figures so I went to the CDC. The Center for Disease Control says almost the same thing but, as their focus is diseases and pregnancy is not a disease, this is how they phrase it. When it comes to things related to sexuality we cannot be confident about the studies. “Because these studies involve private behaviors that investigators cannot observe directly, it is difficult to determine accurately whether an individual is a condom user or whether condoms are used consistently and correctly. [9] “According to NIAID at the National Institute of Health condoms can be up to 85% effective in preventing AIDS. [10] Both the World Health Organization [11] as well as the AIDS Education Global Information System [12] cite similar figures confirming Planned Parenthood reports. I will use these figures then as being true and factual.

The meaning of statistics and probabilities

The above statistics seem to be reassuring and to be a strong advocate for the use of condoms. This is actually what the USA, the UN and other western countries like France and Britain are advocating. This is also the policy that is promoted to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. Let’s look now, at the meaning of statistics. Let’s look at this from a strict, rational, unbiased, cold mathematical view, using only the above facts and figures.

Imagine the weatherman says today there is an 85% chance of rain. You take an umbrella and you go to work. Guess what, it rains and you are dry. The weatherman was correct. Imagine the next day the weatherman says there is a 15% chance of rain. You leave your umbrella at home and go to work. Guess what, it rains and you get soaked. What we usually do is complain about the weatherman because we think they don’t know what they are saying. But that’s not true, the weatherman is correct. Why?

At a personal level it does not matter if there is an 85% chance of rain or 15% chance: when it rains it rains and you get 100% wet. There is no such a thing as 15% rain or 15% pregnant or 15% dead. It rains or it doesn’t. You are pregnant or you are not. You have AIDS or you don’t. You are dead or you are not. But the way statistics work the weatherman is still correct.

The classic middle school example that we all learned is the flipping of coins. If you flip the coin once it might fall on head. If you flip it again it might fall on head again. Eventually, if you flip it enough times and as your sampling gets larger, let’s say 100 times, the probability of falling on head or tail will be 80-20, then 70-30, finally it will stabilize at 50-50. Then, from that point on, you will notice the probability will stay stabilized and constant. You will be able to predict with certainty that, whether you flip the coin 500 times or 1000 times, the coin does indeed have a 50% chance of falling either on head or tail. This can also be represented on a graph and it will show a sharp falling curve that will eventually be constant at the appropriate level.

Again what we need to bear in mind is that:

1. at a personal level the statistics are not relevant (your are pregnant or you are not, you have AIDS or you don’t, even if it is the first time you have sex)
2. at a societal level statistics are an infallible predictor of facts and future outcomes
3. a graph will show the curve falling sharply then stabilizing at a constant level.

Condoms and safe sex

As we asked above can condoms really provide safe sex? We are going only by the figures that Planned Parenthood, the CDC, NIH, WHO and AEGIS are providing. They say that condom is 85% effective and fails only 15% of the time. At a societal level, what these statistics show is that, they are an infallible predictor of the following facts: 15% of those who use condoms will get pregnant and 15% of those who use condoms will get AIDS. The larger the sampling, the population, or the time used, the more infallible the outcome. The more you have “protected” sex and the higher the possibility of getting pregnant or catching AIDS.

At a personal level if you have AIDS you have it 100%. At a societal level, as far as statistical truth and political commitment is concerned, we need to remember the curve. When we first distribute condoms it is certain that they will be effective and the rate of pregnancy and AIDS will drop progressively until the curve stabilizes to give us a constant rate of 15%. Pregnancy and spread of AIDS will remain at that level and will not drop any lower. Statistics are an infallible predictor of facts and future outcome.

In a free country, like ours, I understand that, given the correct information, someone might make the personal choice of taking the risk. At a societal level, what this means is we are condemning 15% of our youth to out of wedlock pregnancy. At that point there is only one way left to reduce the pregnancy rate: abortion.

As far as AIDS is concerned, 15% of the at-risk population who use condoms because they have been told it is safe, are being exposed to the certainty of the disease. What this means is we are condemning those at risk, predictably, constantly and infallibly.

Africa

The above is true in the USA but to understand it further we can illustrate the impact of those policies as they are applied in Africa. The UN, UNICEF, UNAIDS are all involved in eradicating AIDS from Africa by distributing condoms. Some personalities (Ted Turner, [13] Bill Gates [14]) also offer condom help to African countries directly or through the UN. The belief that this is the answer is overwhelming. But if we apply the above reasoning what happens?

Imagine an African country of 10 millions. Out of those 10 millions, half are at risk for AIDS. When we offer them condoms we will see a drop of the incidence of the disease. The risk will fall down from 50% to 30% to 20% and then to 15%. At that point it will stabilize and become a constant 15%. In other words, out of 10 million people, 5 millions are at risk but “thanks” to condoms only 3 millions will actually be infected with AIDS, then 2 millions, then 1.5 millions. Finally, with our condom policy we can be certain that 1.5 millions persons will be infected with AIDS, predictably, constantly and infallibly.

Am I far off?

The above figures are theoretical figures to prove the inescapable logic of distributing condoms to AIDS at-risk populations. The 10 million African country is imaginary. The actual figures are not very reassuring either. The UN report on AIDS in Africa [15] says on page 19 that two of the most affected countries are Zimbabwe (24.6% or 1.6 millions) [16] and South Africa (21.5% or 5.1 millions). Maybe my “theoretical” figures are not that theoretical after all. Only Uganda seems to be succeeding at reducing the disease. “Among patients suffering from sexually transmitted diseases at Uganda’s leading hospital, Mulago, HIV infection rates fell from 44.2 percent in 1989 to 23 per cent in 1999.” [17]

Their infection rate fell from 44.2% in 1989 to 23% in 1999. Why? Because the government promotes abstinence as well as condom use. The figures also show that it has taken 10 years to get down to that level. The question will be, can this figure be lowered even more or have we reached the stabilized, constant and predictable level of 15%, the level of “acceptable” Ugandan deaths?

NAIRU

In standard macroeconomic theory there is what is called the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU). As long as we can maintain an unemployment rate of 4.5% the economy is doing good. [18] If the rate goes up, the economy might be slowing down. If the rate goes down, we might see inflation. 4.5% is an acceptable rate. With the unemployment insurance collected we have enough funds to disburse benefits to claimants who will go out and spend their money which, in turn, will benefit the economy. This is acceptable because both the economy and the claimant benefit from the arrangement. Keeping the NAIRU at 4.5% is a goal that economists, policy makers and the central banks strive to achieve by manipulating interest rates. Are we trying to achieve the same Non-Accelerating Infection Rate of HIV/AIDS by manipulating condom distribution rate?

Africans

Oprah Winfrey quoting the Chicago Tribute states that African American men are almost 9 times more likely to be infected than Whites. [19] The CDC states African Americans are 13% of the population but they represent 50% of new infections. [20] In their 2004-2005 prevention plan the World Health Organization writes “Sub-Saharan Africa, [...] is the region with the highest burden, constituting almost 70% of people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide.” [21] Who are we protecting or not protecting?

Our Children

We need to protect our children and our citizens. The accepted view is: “son, daughter, I know that you are going to have sex anyway; here is a condom; have safe sex.” But, really, when distributing condoms this is what we are saying: “son, daughter, I know that you are going to rob a bank anyway; here is a gun with one bullet; have a safe robbery.” Is that what we call protecting our children? That’s giving them a gun to play Russian roulette with their life. [22] Another way to think about it is: if your seat belt or your gas grill had a 15% failure rate would you think they were safe? If your child’s baby seat had a 15% failure rate would that be acceptable? Would you use it?

When we give a condom to a person telling them they will be safe we are sending them to certain pregnancy and disease or to their death (depending on the population risk). With the NAIRU theory, we have accepted the fact that the risk of unemployment is worth the benefit. With condom use, have we accepted the fact that the risk of pregnancy or AIDS is worth the risk of a one-night stand?

Conclusion

When a patient has been given the facts regarding the risks of a certain treatment and the patient takes the risk knowingly, this is called free choice. When a community or population is given half truths about a treatment that can cause limited but certain disease this can be a misguided political agenda. When those same half truths that can cause limited but certain disease are given to a country or continent of a certain race or color what is that called? If the agenda is to reduce overpopulation in those countries, what is that called? Is there a reason why we tie our financial help to third world countries to their population control policies? [23]

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I believe that people honestly are good natured and they genuinely want to help solve these societal crises. I simply think that our political ideologies and our worldviews cloud our thinking. We have lost critical judgment and common sense with tragic consequences.

Common sense would ask why do we constantly hear condom distribution is the answer to reducing pregnancies and AIDS? Why do we rarely hear about medical research to end AIDS?

Why?

---

SOURCESDiscover Magazine, October 2005, volume 26, number 10, page 48

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/smolin.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

http://plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-birth-control-02.xml

http://plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-condom.xml

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001053.htm

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf page 17

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en

http://www.aegis.org/conferences/iac/2002/moped3571.html

http://www.tedturner.com/tedturner/PhilTemplate.asp?file=PunfP493068.html

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/aids_africa.pdf pages 19, 22, 27, 32, 34

http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm

http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr98/el98-28.html Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200404/tows_past_20040416_b.jhtml

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/brochure/prevention.htm

http://www.who.int/3by5/en/HIV_AIDSplan.pdf page 9

http://www.unfpa.org United Nations Population Fund http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-15-99.html Don’t Fund UNFPA Population Control (libertarian views)

---

NOTES[1] October 2005, volume 26, number 10, page 48

[2] www.discover.com

[3] http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/smolin.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

[5] The pun is intended.

[6] The mistake that got Galileo into trouble.

[7] Lamb skin condoms are poor at preventing pregnancies and are useless at preventing aids.

[8] http://plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-birth-control-02.xml http://plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-condom.xml

[9] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001053.htm

[10] http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf page 17

[11] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en

[12] http://www.aegis.org/conferences/iac/2002/moped3571.html

[13] http://www.tedturner.com/tedturner/PhilTemplate.asp?file=PunfP493068.html

[14] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases

[15] http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/aids_africa.pdf pages 19, 22, 27, 32, 34

[16] http://www.avert.org/subaadults.htm http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/aids_africa.pdf

[17] page 27

[18] http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr98/el98-28.html Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

[19] http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200404/tows_past_20040416_b.jhtml

[20] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/brochure/prevention.htm

[21] http://www.who.int/3by5/en/HIV_AIDSplan.pdf page 9

[22] 15% is 1/6 or one bullet in a 6 shooter.

[23] http://www.unfpa.org United Nations Population Fund specially created to reduce world population growth.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-15-99.html