 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2004Moist internal surfaces
"According to the A m e r i c a n Academy of A l l e rg y, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), the greatest danger of severe reactions occurs when latex comes in contact with moist areas of the body or internal surfaces." >"According to the A m e r i c a n Academy of A l l e rg y, Asthma & >Immunology (AAAAI), the greatest danger of severe reactions occurs when >latex comes in contact with moist areas of the body or internal >surfaces." But not from using condoms. George M. Carter ** Chen FC, Buscher U, Niggemann B. Condoms are not a risk factor for sensitization to latex. Contraception. 2002 Dec;66(6):439-441. Department of Obstetrics, Charite, Campus Virchow-Clinic of Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany. The study was conducted to assess the prevalence of sensitization to latex in a group of women with a high risk for atopy and to determine whether the use of condoms is a relevant risk factor. In a prospective study, 100 atopic women (defined as having specific IgE to common aero- or nutritional allergens) were screened for specific IgE antibodies to latex after delivery: Ten of the 100 women (10%) showed specific IgE to latex. Total IgE concentrations were higher with a history of occupational exposure or of symptoms after contact with latex (p < 0.05, and p < 0.005, respectively), but condom users were not significantly more frequent in the latex-positive group. Our results indicate that prior use of condoms does not appear to be a specific risk factor for sensitization to latex in post-partum women at high-risk for atopy. Latex-free condoms should only be recommended to women already known to be sensitized to latex. Copyright 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. What has this to do with my quote? The report does not make sense, however. Latex is latex and it makes no difference if it is shaped like a glove or a condom. This study smacks of an industry white wash that defies all common sense and logic. How could you possibly tell where the build-up of IgE came from? Think about it. This is pure nonsense. >What has this to do with my quote? > >The report does not make sense, however. Latex is latex and it makes no >difference if it is shaped like a glove or a condom. It's not the shape. It's the surface area. The frequency of use. Rate of exposure. And the very tiny number of people with allergies can use plastic. mountain out of a molehill. George M. Carter http://www.families-first.com/features/ovariancancer.htm One or more of the following characteristics puts you at above average risk of ovarian cancer: Family history of ovarian cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer. Personal history of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colon cancer. No pregnancies or no birth control use and infertility (uninterrupted ovulation). Exposure to talc or asbestos (industrial contamination, frequently used douches, CONDOMS, dusting powder containing talc, used in the genital area. Increasing age. Breast-Ovarian Cancer Syndrome(s) Ashkenazi Jewish population. Fertility drugs taken for more than three cycles has been linked to an increased risk. >http://www.families-first.com/features/ovariancancer.htm >One or more of the following characteristics puts you at above average >risk of ovarian cancer: Interesting and overall irrelevant. Risk, benefit, dear. The risk for a woman developing fibrosis from talc on condoms (and what evidence is that it is still used?) is very limited and the OR relatively low. The absolute risk is probably nonexistent. Versus the risk of HIV, STDs, unwanted pregnancy. George M. Carter ** http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/73502962/ABSTRACT Original Article Perineal talc exposure and risk of ovarian carcinoma Stella Chang, B.A., Harvey A. Risch, M.D., Ph.D. * Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut *Correspondence to Harvey A. Risch, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, 60 College Street, P.O. Box 208034, New Haven, CT 06520-8034 Funded by: National Health Research and Development Program of Health Canada, awarded to Dr. Risch; Grant Number: 6613-1415-53 Keywords case-control studies; ovarian neoplasms; risk factors; talc Abstract BACKGROUND Clinical and epidemiologic studies have indicated the possible existence of an association between ovarian carcinoma and talcum powder use. Talc particles have been detected in histologic sections of ovarian carcinomas. It has also been demonstrated that inert particles travel from the perineum to the ovaries. Results from epidemiologic investigations have varied, from risks increased by twofold to no significant risk detected. METHODS A total of 450 patients with borderline and invasive ovarian carcinoma and 564 population controls in metropolitan Toronto and nearby areas of southern Ontario, Canada, were identified. These subjects were interviewed about their reproductive and menstrual histories as well as their exposure to dusting powders. Continuous unconditional logistic regression methods were used for analysis. RESULTS Exposure to talc, via sanitary napkins, direct application to the perineum, or both, was significantly associated with risk of ovarian carcinoma (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.86). A borderline-significant association was detected between duration of talc exposure and risk (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.21, per 10 years of exposure). No significant association was found between frequency of exposure and risk. In comparing invasive and borderline carcinomas, risk remained elevated for both carcinoma types. Only risk for invasive carcinoma was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS This investigation supports previous contentions that exposure to talc may increase risk of ovarian carcinoma. Questionable trends in duration and frequency of exposure suggest that further studies may be needed to clarify the role of talc in the etiology of this disease. Cancer 1997; 79:2396-401. © 1997 American Cancer Society. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Received: 23 October 1996; Revised: 31 January 1996; Accepted: 31 January 1996 "Interesting and overall irrelevant." To you. Perhaps it is because you are not at risk for ovarian cancer. >"Interesting and overall irrelevant." > >To you. Perhaps it is because you are not at risk for ovarian cancer. Most women (read >99%) are not at risk from ovarian cancer from male partners using a condom. Unless you have data to the contrary? George M. Carter "Most women (read >99%) are not at risk from ovarian cancer from male partners using a condom. Unless you have data to the contrary?" How many times do I have to post it? Where do you get your figure of 99%. Did you just make it up? Dear Mr. Carter, How could you possibly calculate the risk from a carcinogen? Without a real study, all one can say is that a 'potent carcinogen' or should I say at least three, being rubbed into the moist tissue of a woman's sexual organs is not a good idea. Add to that a teratogen and you have something potentially very serious. You can make-up any figure you like but the truth is this could be VERY serious and deserves further study. I am sure as it is not called 'AIDS that' you will not agree. >Dear Mr. Carter, > >How could you possibly calculate the risk from a carcinogen? Good question. It's been done! Risks from carcinogen exposure relate to the frequency and concentration of the exposure, among other factors. With condoms, your hysterical squealings are virtually irrelevant compared to other risks we face daily from exposure to a range of carcinogens. Meanwhile, the risks associated with HIV, STDs, and/or unwanted pregnancy make condom use extremely sensible. Of course, not having sex can be an effective method as well. George M. Carter "With condoms, your hysterical squealings are virtually irrelevant compared to other risks we face daily from exposure to a range of carcinogens." Oh yes. Using a 'potent carcinogen' internally is so very safe. Let's all rub carcinogens on our dicks just for fun. You go first......as the only real 'dick' around here. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.