Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

surface lubricant on the majority of condoms manufactured in the United States

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 06 Jan 2005 00:07 GMT
"it is still used as a surface lubricant on the majority of condoms
manufactured in the United States and abroad.

Remarkably, the Food and Drug Administration never addressed the issue of
talc on the surface of condoms, even though they required surgical glove
manufacturers to remove all tales used in processing.

The last 10 years has seen a dramatic increase in the use of condoms. If
tale contributes to ovarian carcinoma and/or fallopian tube sclerosis, we
predict a significant increase in the incidence of ovarian carcinoma and
infertility due to the deleterious effects of condom talc. We do not
advocate abandoning condom use. "
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 06 Jan 2005 00:30 GMT
>"[talc] is still used as a surface lubricant on the majority of condoms
>manufactured in the United States and abroad.

Those words were written in 1995.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3251b6add4ed5e7961bc07a627d3e000%40localhos
t.talkabouthealthnetwork.com
>

What is the situation today?

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 06 Jan 2005 01:23 GMT
The same. You know that.
GMCarter - 06 Jan 2005 11:53 GMT
>The same. You know that.

Dither! You are that.
PaulKing - 06 Jan 2005 23:32 GMT
As you have lost another debate I expect that is the best you can do.

Pathetic fool.
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 06 Jan 2005 21:58 GMT
>The same. You know that.

Having heard it only from you, I *don't* know it.

You quoted articles from 1995 saying most condoms are made with talc.
It is now 2005.  What is the most recent journal article you can
provide a reference for that says most condoms are still being made
with talc?

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 06 Jan 2005 23:31 GMT
Check with the condom industry trade association.

They say the only change in formulation in the last few years is a slight
modification in the vulcanizing agents formulated to decrease 'on shelf'
vulcanization.

They mention nothing about removing talc.

Go ask them.
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 07 Jan 2005 01:58 GMT
>Check with the condom industry trade association.

Give us an URL.  The mere name "condom industry trade association"
is useless for trying to find them on the web.

Given your repeated failure to provide checkable evidence for your
claim that most condoms are still made with talc, I can't help but
begin to suspect that you might not have any.

Hey, look what I found:

<http://fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/recentadvances.htm>

"Dry dusting powders help keep the rolled up latex condom from sticking
to itself. To accomplish this, manufacturers have used cornstarch,
talc, mica, calcium carbonate, silicon dioxide, magnesium carbonate,
lycopodium, dry silicone and other powders, with cornstarch currently
the most commonly used."

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 07 Jan 2005 06:28 GMT
FIRST THE LINK YOU PROVIDED DOES NOT WORK

SECOND. Your source (yes, I found it) actually says something VERY
DIFFERENT!!!!!!!

http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/recresprior.htm

"...... new concerns are arising regarding allergic or other toxic
reactions to various components of latex condoms such as vulcanization
accelerators, latex proteins, spermicides and finishing powders."

"* Studies are needed to evaluate the best lubricants to use in the
manufacture of condoms. Evidence suggests that the right quantity, type
and placement of lubricant is important for condom functionality,
acceptability and safety.

In addition, the added value and risk presented by spermicidal lubricants
and by dry finishing powders (e.g. talc or cornstarch) should be
critically examined."

So much for corn starch.

And that is from an organisation dedicated to promoting condoms.
GMCarter - 07 Jan 2005 13:08 GMT
>FIRST THE LINK YOU PROVIDED DOES NOT WORK

Who? What?  Which?

>SECOND. Your source (yes, I found it) actually says something VERY
>DIFFERENT!!!!!!!
>
>http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/recresprior.htm

LOL. No you didn't. That's the balanced, honest truth. YOU want to
distort into an hysterical treatise to confirm your selfish and
foolish desire to f.ck without a condom. Pretty simple.

I care less and less, given your willful foolishness, about whether
that results in your early death from AIDS. I do care, though, about
your victims at this point. Your delusional beliefs are dangerous,
cruel and stupid.

You need medical care.

>"...... new concerns are arising regarding allergic or other toxic
>reactions to various components of latex condoms such as vulcanization
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>and by dry finishing powders (e.g. talc or cornstarch) should be
>critically examined."

I agree wholeheartedly with this. And in addition, we need effective
microbicides.

Meantime, condoms are extremely safe compared to most of the risks we
face in life. E.g., spreading talcum powder routinely over the genital
area? Even that is pretty low risk.

Compared to acquiring an STD or HIV.

>So much for corn starch.

I see. A suggestion for research is sufficient to result in complete
rejection. More impeccable logic! Wheee!!

>And that is from an organisation dedicated to promoting condoms.

Less so, these days, now that the anti-sex Bushies and psycho fundies
are taking over and stripping the science and careful evaluation out
of the NIH, PubMed, CDC, etc.

        George M. Carter
David Canzi -- non-mailable address - 07 Jan 2005 19:59 GMT
>FIRST THE LINK YOU PROVIDED DOES NOT WORK
>
>SECOND. Your source (yes, I found it) actually says something VERY
>DIFFERENT!!!!!!!
>
>http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/recresprior.htm

The link I provided works fine at Google but not at Talkabout.
Some broken software at Talkabout has damaged the link by including
the trailing '>' as part of the URL.

<http://fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/recentadvances.htm>

If that version of the link doesn't work for you, try this one:
http://fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/recentadvances.htm

"Dry dusting powders help keep the rolled up latex condom from sticking
to itself. To accomplish this, manufacturers have used cornstarch,
talc, mica, calcium carbonate, silicon dioxide, magnesium carbonate,
lycopodium, dry silicone and other powders, with cornstarch currently
the most commonly used."

Concerns were raised about condoms, talc and cancer over 10 years
ago.  It would be remarkable if condom manufacturers hadn't moved
to alternatives.  As long as you continue claiming that most condoms
are made with talc and posting articles about talc and cancer, without
being able to provide any verifiable information about the *current*
use of talc on condoms, you are lying to your audience.

Signature

David Canzi

GMCarter - 07 Jan 2005 21:25 GMT
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 19:59:14 +0000 (UTC),
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable address)
wrote:

>snip...  As long as you continue claiming that most condoms
>are made with talc and posting articles about talc and cancer, without
>being able to provide any verifiable information about the *current*
>use of talc on condoms, you are lying to your audience.

Let alone the notion that there is any persuasive evidence that
condoms with talc pose any serious threat for ANY kind of disease.
Most of the talc/ovarian cancer material he has posted has been
related to using daily amounts on the crotch for sweat. No links
between condom use and any chemically-induced diseases.

He's just squealing and whining cause he wants to be an irresponsible
f.cker.

        George M. Carter
GMCarter - 06 Jan 2005 00:36 GMT
>"it is still used as a surface lubricant on the majority of condoms
>manufactured in the United States and abroad.

In 1995 that was written. So you're distorting as well as
exaggerating.

Qulle surprise, M. du Merde! lol
PaulKing - 06 Jan 2005 01:23 GMT
"n 1995 that was written. "

So? What has changed?

Idiot!
 
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.