THE NEW SMART CONDOM- VERY INTERESTING!!!

[NTXReggie]

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-02-1...-lab-test-stds

We will see if the condoms come to fruition or not but this is likely to be the device of the future for the sexually active adventurer.

I can see the ads now:

"By the time you finish that drink at the bar or scrubbing up for your latest provider, you both can be sure that unprotected sex is A-OK!"

"15 minutes is all it takes for both of you to know that the only bad thing that can come from your little bareback rendezvous is nine months away!"

Which begs the question...if you knew without a doubt that your partner was STD free, would that change the frequency with which you use condoms?

[Guest070818-1]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2015/06/23/...-to-stds-pics/


This new “smart condom” was created by a group of teenage students and it will glow different colors if it detects an STD! See how it works…
Dailymail.co.uk says that the “smart condom” was developed by a group of teen for the Teen Tech awards.
The condom will work with a layer of chemicals on the surface that will attach to bacteria and viruses from STDs.
Here are the colors that the condom will change if STDs are detected:

“glow green for chlamydia, yellow for herpes, purple in the presence of the human papillomavirus which causes genital warts, and blue for syphilis.”

Not only will the “smart condoms” make you aware if your partner might have an STD, one of the designers explained:

“We wanted to create something that makes detecting harmful STIs safer than ever before, so that people can take immediate action in the privacy of their own homes without the invasive procedures at the doctors.”

Sounds like a good idea!

Interesting! Very neat idea.

[Randall Creed]

Ok, but WHICH SIDE is supposed to change colors, the inside or outside?

What if she douches or pees beforehand? Will lube have any affect?

And yes, the BIG question...will it create a false sense of security? With that false sense, does it encourage more bb'ing? I mean, say you bang someone with syphilis yesterday, and use a 'smart condom' today? Would it change??

[Guest020720]

Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Ok, but WHICH SIDE is supposed to change colors, the inside or outside?

What if she douches or pees beforehand? Will lube have any affect?

And yes, the BIG question...will it create a false sense of security? With that false sense, does it encourage more bb'ing? I mean, say you bang someone with syphilis yesterday, and use a 'smart condom' today? Would it change??

I was just reading through this and was wondering who does it change colors for? Him or her?

This is an interesting idea in theory, but the safest bet is to get tested regularly and to use a cover every time. (and guys, cut the shit with the stripper slide! assholes)

[theboss21422]

Obviously him(hes wearing the condom)but who has the std

[Guest020720]

right, is it changing colors because it is finding a std on the guy or the girl?

"It's interesting to hear that they invented something that in order to find out if someone has a disease or not, you have to fuck them first...so the condom can tell you after the fact. Those kids seem smart. scenario "Oh don't worry. I already fuck him with a smart condom and found out he's clean. And so am I. Don't worry, I got your back. How else will I know if they are dying of some std! I've got to fuck them right away so I know I'm what I'm dealing with. I'm not going to go out with him if he's got some disease." .... " Kelly TNT

[mediavolume]

May be useful for ISO.

GREEN LF BBBJ

[Caitie Mae]

Let's review the list of infectious conditions for which this condom tests.

• chlamydia
• herpes
• human papillomavirus
• syphilis

Does anyone notice a glaring omission(s)?

Unless these condoms are smart enough to alert to every sexually transmitted infection, they are little more than a novelty.

~sweetness~

[Randall Creed]

Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

Let's review the list of infectious conditions for which this condom tests.

• chlamydia
• herpes
• human papillomavirus
• syphilis

Does anyone notice a glaring omission(s)?

Unless these condoms are smart enough to alert to every sexually transmitted infection, they are little more than a novelty.

~sweetness~

Yeah, but I'm afraid of ALL of them.

[Caitie Mae]

Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Yeah, but I'm afraid of ALL of them.

Exactly my point.

[slims099]

http://throb.gizmodo.com/sorry-dont-...-so-1714706951

Getting the antibody from an infected person to bind to the antigen on the test strip is just the first step. The reaction is still invisible until you add a dye. How do you get a dye to attach to an antibody? You need to add another antibody.

This “secondary” antibody has a dye molecule attached to one end. Its other end can bind to any other antibody made inside one particular type of animal: either all rabbits, or chickens, or goats, or mice, you get the idea. The result, in a staining protocol, is a sandwich-like chain with two antibodies crammed between the antigen and the dye that announces the reaction to the world.

That’s all for one test. At a minimum, any company pursuing this idea would have to figure out a way to embed those steps into the plastic they make the condom from. If they could do that, they would also have to find a way to make the condom absorbable enough to test a little semen or vaginal fluid without becoming so porous that it let those fluids seep all the way through. Multiple layers might work, but in general, condom manufacturers are trying to find ways to make their product thinner and stronger, not partly porous.

To put multiple tests with multiple dyes into one condom is even more of a technical nightmare. In the lab, it’s possible to stain more than one protein at a time using different dyes, but it’s a delicate operation—you need to use antibodies raised in different species to avoid cross-reactions and false positives. In a condom, all the first line of antibodies would be human ones, and the secondary antibodies, each carrying a different dye, wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. One possible solution might be to put discrete test spots all around the condom, each one specific to a different kind of infection.



--- Looks like this is a way's off I guess.

[Caitie Mae]

Originally Posted by slims099

http://throb.gizmodo.com/sorry-dont-...-so-1714706951

Getting the antibody from an infected person to bind to the antigen on the test strip is just the first step. The reaction is still invisible until you add a dye. How do you get a dye to attach to an antibody? You need to add another antibody.

This “secondary” antibody has a dye molecule attached to one end. Its other end can bind to any other antibody made inside one particular type of animal: either all rabbits, or chickens, or goats, or mice, you get the idea. The result, in a staining protocol, is a sandwich-like chain with two antibodies crammed between the antigen and the dye that announces the reaction to the world.

That’s all for one test. At a minimum, any company pursuing this idea would have to figure out a way to embed those steps into the plastic they make the condom from. If they could do that, they would also have to find a way to make the condom absorbable enough to test a little semen or vaginal fluid without becoming so porous that it let those fluids seep all the way through. Multiple layers might work, but in general, condom manufacturers are trying to find ways to make their product thinner and stronger, not partly porous.

To put multiple tests with multiple dyes into one condom is even more of a technical nightmare. In the lab, it’s possible to stain more than one protein at a time using different dyes, but it’s a delicate operation—you need to use antibodies raised in different species to avoid cross-reactions and false positives. In a condom, all the first line of antibodies would be human ones, and the secondary antibodies, each carrying a different dye, wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. One possible solution might be to put discrete test spots all around the condom, each one specific to a different kind of infection.



--- Looks like this is a way's off I guess.

And there you have it.

Don't believe the hype.

Get tested.

[atf searcher]

Originally Posted by slims099

http://throb.gizmodo.com/sorry-dont-...-so-1714706951

Getting the antibody from an infected person to bind to the antigen on the test strip is just the first step. The reaction is still invisible until you add a dye. How do you get a dye to attach to an antibody? You need to add another antibody.

This “secondary” antibody has a dye molecule attached to one end. Its other end can bind to any other antibody made inside one particular type of animal: either all rabbits, or chickens, or goats, or mice, you get the idea. The result, in a staining protocol, is a sandwich-like chain with two antibodies crammed between the antigen and the dye that announces the reaction to the world.

That’s all for one test. At a minimum, any company pursuing this idea would have to figure out a way to embed those steps into the plastic they make the condom from. If they could do that, they would also have to find a way to make the condom absorbable enough to test a little semen or vaginal fluid without becoming so porous that it let those fluids seep all the way through. Multiple layers might work, but in general, condom manufacturers are trying to find ways to make their product thinner and stronger, not partly porous.

To put multiple tests with multiple dyes into one condom is even more of a technical nightmare. In the lab, it’s possible to stain more than one protein at a time using different dyes, but it’s a delicate operation—you need to use antibodies raised in different species to avoid cross-reactions and false positives. In a condom, all the first line of antibodies would be human ones, and the secondary antibodies, each carrying a different dye, wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. One possible solution might be to put discrete test spots all around the condom, each one specific to a different kind of infection.



--- Looks like this is a way's off I guess.

This is true, testing isn't that simple. I'm sure there are some doctors LTFAO when they heard about this.

[Glenn Quagmire]

It's just a concept, but bravo for those teens. Teens have the highest STD rates to begin with.

But in today's reality, most of those diseases take time, centrifuges, chemicals, and microscopes to diagnose. The HIV antibody test is the only rapid test for the list of STD's as it is now and that requires a blood sample.

Till then, wrap it up and be glad that saliva and other gastrointestinal chemicals are deadly to most STD's.