LOL. Articles YOU posted? I reject your assertions because you lie
like a rug!

In the immortal words of that evil creep Cheney, "go f.ck yourself."
You won't need a condom then.

Written in 1995. See now:
http://www.stopaids.org/resources/free_condoms/condom_types.html

and

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=27482

and

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_report.jsp?WebLogicSession=Q
dv21LPEXbIOzaTPr3CjAXoNA7mzRSuKNNambjrQJa86jDPjqPTD|-7713857185340821589/1699379
09/6/7005/7005/7002/7002/7005/-1|-7976650973904308052/169937904/6/7005/7005/7002
/7002/7005/-1&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=551087&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=333141&bmUID=1
104934613044

and
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_report.jsp?WebLogicSession=Q
dxzYoOGAMtyU9WWk1s2X8HcNHnsd0mOyz9ekCJnXh4dpAFcFHe6|-7713857185340821589/1699379
09/6/7005/7005/7002/7002/7005/-1|-7976650973904308052/169937904/6/7005/7005/7002
/7002/7005/-1&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=551083&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=333141&bmUID=1
104966499128

see also:
http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newscience/ovariancancer/2004-0217peerreviewo
varian.htm

Yes, ovarian cancer is a serious problem. Happily, pretty rare. Given
the risks of sex without a condom for many people, the talc issue is
controversial. Indeed, whether simply using a condom that MIGHT have
talc on it during sex is sufficient to increase a risk for ovarian
cancer is not necessarily support (whereas use of talcum powder in the
gential area would provide a higher concentration). See below for an
excerpt from the last URL of the list above.

Indeed, one study (abstract below) that provided some evidence for a
role of talc in ovarian cancer also suggested that condom use was not
likely to be relevant.

Cramer DW, Welch WR, Scully RE, Wojciechowski CA. Ovarian cancer and
talc: a case-control study. Cancer. 1982 Jul 15;50(2):372-376.

Opportunities for genital exposure to talc were assessed in 215 white
females with epithelial ovarian cancers and in 215 control women from
the general population matched by age, race, and residence. Ninety-two
(42.8%) cases regularly used talc either as a dusting powder on the
perineum or on sanitary napkins compared with 61 (28.4%) controls.
Adjusted for parity and menopausal status, this difference yielded a
relative risk of 1.92 (P less than 0.003) for ovarian cancer
associated with these practices. Women who had regularly engaged in
both practices had an adjusted relative risk of 3.28 (P less than
0.001) compared to women with neither exposure. This provides some
support for an association between talc and ovarian cancer
hypothesized because of the similarity of ovarian cancer to
mesotheliomas and the chemical relation of talc to asbestos, a known
cause of mesotheliomas. The authors also investigated opportunities
for potential talc exposure from rubber products such as condoms or
diaphragms or from pelvic surgery. No significant differences were
noted between cases and controls in these exposures, although the

In any event, some condoms have replaced talc with corn starch. For
example:
http://www.1clickcondoms.com/Condoms/Lifestyles/67/Lifestyles-Large.html

Frankly, I'd be more concerned with condoms that have nonoxynol-9 as a
lubricant and would avoid those.

So once again, Paul, you'll probably post this same study over and
over and over despite the fact the evidence is pretty weak for the
hysterical, squealing raging claims you make that somehow you twist
around in your little pea brain to justify f.cking without a condom.

        George M. Carter

**
Talc and Ovarian Cancer

The potential association between use of talc powders in the genital
area and development of ovarian cancer is extremely controversial.
Talcum powder may be applied directly to the genital area after
bathing, or may be sprinkled on sanitary napkins. In addition, talc
may be used on condoms or on diaphragms. One experimental study found
that carbon particles deposited in the vagina can travel up into the
fallopian tubes within 30 minutes, implying that talc applied to the
genital area may also do so (Egli and Newton 1961). A pathology study
done in the early 1970’s found embedded talc particles in 75% of
ovarian tumors sampled (Henderson et al. 1971). Talc has been
suspected for many years because it is chemically related to asbestos,
and because talcum powders in the past were contaminated with asbestos
fibers. Women occupationally exposed to asbestos have been reported to
have an increased risk of ovarian cancer (Keal 1960). In addition, one
of the most common types of ovarian cancer, invasive serous cancers,
very closely resemble mesotheliomas. Mesothelioma is a type of cancer
that is specifically associated with exposure to asbestos. On the
other side of the debate, several studies in which talc was injected
directly into the ovaries of rats failed to identify significant
increases in ovarian cancer (Wehner 2002).

Several retrospective studies comparing women with ovarian cancer and
similar women without the disease, have reported apparent associations
between talc usage and ovarian cancer. Some of these studies have
reported only marginal associations, whereas others have reported
risks up to nearly 2.5-fold (Chang and Risch 1997). Twelve fairly
large case-control studies reported associations between talc exposure
and ovarian cancer, whereas three small studies did not find any
association. One study of more than a thousand women found that 45% of
women with ovarian cancer reported using talc in their genital area,
compared to 36% of women without the disease, leading to an overall
increased relative risk of about 60%. Women who did not themselves use
the powder, but whose husbands regularly used talc on their genitals
also had a 50% increased risk of ovarian cancer. The only women in
this study who failed to show such an association were those who had
previously had a tubal ligation, implying that closing off the pathway
from the external genitals to the ovaries may be protective (Cramer et
al. 1999). In addition, use of talc prior to pregnancy was associated
with a much higher risk than talc usage after pregnancy, implying that
changes may occur in the ovary during pregnancy that may decrease
susceptibility. The authors of this study predicted that approximately
10% of ovarian cancer cases in the general population may be
attributable to talc usage.

The increasingly persuasive body of research on talc and ovarian
cancer was called into question in February of 2000, when a
prospective study was published looking at this issue as part of the
very large Nurses’ Health Study (Gertig et al. 2000). Among the over
78,000 women in the cohort for analysis, 307 women were diagnosed with
ovarian cancer by June of 1996. Previously, in 1982, all the women had
answered questions about talc use in the genital area. The question
was phrased to ascertain whether they had ‘ever’ used talc, making it
difficult to ascertain when the usage occurred or whether it was
ongoing. In this study, there was no overall association between use
of talc and ovarian cancer, even when the researchers attempted to
take into consideration numerous factors that could affect the
association. However, there was approximately a 40% greater report of
ever using talc among those women who later developed serous invasive
ovarian cancers. The serous cell type accounts for more than half of
all invasive ovarian cancers, has been linked to asbestos, and was
previously associated with talc in another study.

A combined analysis of sixteen studies on talc and ovarian cancer
included a total of 11,933 women (Huncharek et al. 2003). The pooled
results of this analysis showed an overall 33 percent increased risk
of ovarian cancer with talc use, which was statistically significant.
However, the authors of the analysis nonetheless questioned the
validity of this result for two reasons: first, there was no clear
dose-response relationship where women who reported more or longer use
of talc were at higher risk, and second, the studies that used
comparison patients who were hospitalized with other diseases did not
find any difference in talc usage, and only the studies that used
healthy women for comparison found an association. The authors
believed that this could mean that flaws in study design might explain
the apparent association.