>"Not found to any significant degree in condoms."
>
>NONSENSE.
It's not.
>"Even people with LATEX
>SENSITIVITIES have no trouble using condoms."
There are data suggesting that people with latex allergies in general
don't have any trouble. Some few undoubtedly do.
Polyurethane, as the unverified case you posted indicated, worked
fine. Though it is costly, it is less expensive than having an
unwanted pregnancy or having an STD or HIV.
>That is the biggest lie I have ever heard. I can post hundreds of reports
>that show that to be utter BS.
Hundreds? really? Like the list of hundreds of denialist scientists?
Most of whom aren't?
>Latex is latex. If you react to latex the shape makes no difference. How
>could it?
Surface area, dear. Frequency of use. People who develop allergies are
exposed to a lot more latex over longer periods than people who use
condoms.
>P.S. This report is only about latex proteins NOT carcinogens, toxins and
>teratogens. 'Deproteinised latex' is seldom, in reality used in condoms.
So what?
You're trying to make a mountain out of a relatively minor problem.
VERY tiny risks blown out of proportion from condoms versus the very
ENORMOUS risks of HIV, STDs, etc. To justify your own stupidity and
inability to think rationally.
I earnestly wish you the best of luck in healing before you die.
George M. Carter