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 / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Condoms contain 57 toxic proteins, 41 FDA toxins, 3 Carcinogens, 2 suspected Carcinogens and at least one Teratogen (causes birth defects). In addition silicone is the main lubricant (as in breast implants).

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PaulKing - 30 May 2005 01:06 GMT
Condoms contain 57 toxic proteins, 41 FDA toxins, 3 Carcinogens, 2
suspected Carcinogens and at least one Teratogen (causes birth defects).
In addition silicone is the main lubricant (as in breast implants).
by "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> May 24, 2005 at 02:54 PM

Condoms contain 57 toxic proteins, 41 FDA toxins, 3 Carcinogens, 2
suspected Carcinogens and at least one Teratogen (causes birth defects).
In addition silicone is the main lubricant (as in breast implants).
INDUSTRY BROCHURE ADMITS KNOWLEDGE OF TOXIC EFFECTS OF THEIR PRODUCT

"............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."

VISUAL DETECTION ONLY
(If HIV existed it would be 125,000th of an inch across)

"Independent laboratories testing selected condoms from batches for
quality assurance use either the "hang" or the "hang/roll" method,
described on page 50. (Some manufacturers also use these methods.) ISO,
CEN and WHO require the hang/roll method. ASTM and USAID require only the
hang method. The hang/roll method is more capable of detecting holes that
leak tiny amounts of water undetected by the human eye. Even so, both
tests are limited to visual detection.

While experts consider the visual test acceptable, they would like to
find
a more reliable and reproducible test that is independent of the
technician's judgment. An electronic detection approach could be used,
but
would require complex apparatus. In monitoring condom imports, a few
countries currently use an electronic wet test similar to the one used
during the manufacturing process."

INTERNATION STANDARDS DON"T REQUIRE EVEN MANY BASIC TESTS
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 31 May 2005 01:29 GMT
>Condoms contain 57 toxic proteins, 41 FDA toxins, 3 Carcinogens, 2
>suspected Carcinogens and at least one Teratogen (causes birth defects).
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>suspected Carcinogens and at least one Teratogen (causes birth defects).
>In addition silicone is the main lubricant (as in breast implants).

Once in the subject, twice more in the article.  You must think you're
the Bellman.[1]

57 + 41 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 104.  That's 104 harmful chemicals you claim are
present in condoms.  But it means nothing unless you can prove that
there is actually enough of these chemicals there to be dangerous.
104 times bugger-all is bugger-all.

Anybody can check a dictionary and see that "silicone" is not the
name of one unique chemical, but of a family of chemicals.  You have
been asked repeatedly to provide evidence that silicone(s) used to
lubricate condoms and silicone(s) used in breast implants are the same,
or similar in any relevant way.  You never provide that evidence,
and you never stop trying to forge[2] a connection between condoms
and breast implants.  You have claimed elsewhere to have worked as
a chemist formulating a latex product.  You therefore have no excuse
for this kind of head-up-your-a.s chronic ignorance about silicones.

[1] "What I say three times is true." -- Lewis Carroll, The Hunting
   of the Snark.

[2] forge vt ... 3: to make or imitate falsely esp. with intent to
   defraud : COUNTERFEIT -- Merriam-Webster

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 01 Jun 2005 00:35 GMT
It is almost EXACTLY the same.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 01 Jun 2005 03:25 GMT
>It is almost EXACTLY the same.

One relevant citation to scientific literature is worth more than a
thousand repetitions of the same unsupported bald assertion.  Justify
your claims instead of just repeating yourself like a retarded parrot.

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 01 Jun 2005 11:36 GMT
I have again and again as you well know.

Time you supported yours.

An impossible task.
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 01 Jun 2005 21:14 GMT
>I have again and again as you well know.

Then you should have no trouble providing a link to just one of the
many articles in which you have done so.

Show us the sources you have used to demonstrate the relevance of
the danger or safety of silicone in breast implants to the danger or
safety of silicone lubricant on condoms.  Yes. they are both silicones,
but then so is silly putty.

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 01 Jun 2005 11:39 GMT
Do you dispute condoms contain: -

57 FDA listed toxic proteins?

At least 3 FDA listed carcinogens?

At least two FDA listed teratogens?

That so many known toxic additives must present a health risk?

What in Hell do you dispute?
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 01 Jun 2005 21:52 GMT
>Do you dispute condoms contain: -
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>That so many known toxic additives must present a health risk?

I doubt all of it, since I have heard it only from you, and you seem
to have "higher" motivations that "transcend" issues of "mere" truth.

But I choose to concentrate on the last claim: "So many known toxic
additives must present a health risk"

A count of the number of toxins allegedly present tells us nothing
about the risk they pose unless we know the quantities people are
exposed to and the resulting probabilities of diseases.  Without that
kind of quantitative information, counting toxins is just numerology.

Signature

David Canzi

Brian Mailman - 01 Jun 2005 16:23 GMT
>>It is almost EXACTLY the same.
>
> One relevant citation to scientific literature is worth more than a
> thousand repetitions of the same unsupported bald assertion.  Justify
> your claims instead of just repeating yourself like a retarded parrot.

'for the first time in 20 years my son-in-law was making sense, then i
realized i was talking to the parrot.'
            ---- 'eight skilled gentlemen' by barry hughart

b/
David Canzi -- non-mailable - 01 Jun 2005 21:53 GMT
>'for the first time in 20 years my son-in-law was making sense, then i
>realized i was talking to the parrot.'
>             ---- 'eight skilled gentlemen' by barry hughart

LOL

Signature

David Canzi

PaulKing - 02 Jun 2005 02:39 GMT
Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his
research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves
(published in Rubber World, June, 1993).

Roland said that what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among good
scientists who have no political agenda."

Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size
(a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a
syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.

The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage
through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in
Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I'll mention the Canadian test below).

Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms
tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents
such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."

Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can
see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in
natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns."

And it's not as if governments don't know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized
particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89
condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland
says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage
rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this]
study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public
health and welfare." The federal government's standard tests, he adds,
"cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus."

Such tests are "blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet
this quantity of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to
contain as
many as 100,000 HIV particles."

As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, "The HIV virus can go through a
condom like a bullet through a tennis net."

It's the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different
manufacturers revealed "pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns
deep." More relevant to HIV transmission, "5 micron-wide channels,
penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves." He said
the presence of such defects in latex "is well established."

For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada
test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent
tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort
to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the
condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an
"improved" 28% rate.
 
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.