It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

German Study Says Condoms Contain Cancer-causing Chemical

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

Damn
What everything causes cancer now?


Pretty much, depending on how you use it, where it came from, age, quality, all kinds of things.

People can die from all sorts of innocuous things, you can die from drinking too much water.

I am always suspicious of any research, because it is funded by someone, and does this sound like the kind of research a government would spend public money on? No, therefore it must have financial backing from somewhere.

Also, there are always egos involved. Someone believes something and they'll manipulate and massage data to prove it, especially if they've spent considerable time and effort trying to prove their point.

I would suggest people look into the money trail before they believe anything in that report. I can almost guarantee you'll find a religious influence somewhere, or even a condom manufacturer who a week after this data is out releases a product without the mentioned compound, thereby making it an instant competitor against a leading brand...




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
what does Rush say about it?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Ah, hell. If you start to grow small tumors, just tell her it's now ribbed, for her pleasure!
Seriously though, this sucks. All this time, we've been told to wear these things, and now we're told it's going to mess up our junk. I guess I'm just going to keep chewing Copenhagen, eating pizza and cheeseburgers and when they have to amputate my best friend, that will be it. See if I can have my stomach cancer or heart failure win the race to pecker cancer.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Well I guess its time to buy stock in fleshlight and lambskin condoms. I wonder since I use crown condoms being the thinnest if that increases risk? Would be nice to have more specific data and brands. The truth is I would rather die from having to much sex than aids/hiv....just saying.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
so the chocolate laced condoms released the most of this cancer causing stuff.....I want to know who backed this study...



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Seeing that lambskins have been mention a few times lets not forget that:

Important note: Lambskin condoms are great, but they do not prevent the transmission of many diseases, including HIV.


Lambskin FAQ



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
-Ok i did some research and it seems this story is actually 8 years old. www.catholicnewsagency.com...
-Another thing to add is the first news agency to break the story 8 years ago was a Catholic funded news agency.


*This is my first post on ATS FYI so i dont know really if im replying to the thread or not.*



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by finegans
-Ok i did some research and it seems this story is actually 8 years old. www.catholicnewsagency.com...
-Another thing to add is the first news agency to break the story 8 years ago was a Catholic funded news agency.


*This is my first post on ATS FYI so i dont know really if im replying to the thread or not.*


You replied just fine, and kudos for the research..........newbie


Call me biased, but the fact that the report came from Germany overrides the fact that it was a Catholic funded news agency. They're the type who are prone to take the money and not hold any grudges towards the pea brains who gave it to them.

As far as the condoms go though, here's a novel idea........stay with the same partner for the rest of your life and you won't have much to worry about 'cause you won't have to wear them. That's my plan and I'm sticking to it.




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Sablicious
 


By all means, don't bother wearing a condom.

You'll understand why people do if you're unfortunate enough to contract a STD or even worse, HIV.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Ok...I read the article...and one of the most disturbing parts for me was this.


Researchers measured amounts of N-Nitrosamine, that were way above the prescribed limits for other rubber products such as baby pacifiers.


Great...one of the most cancer causing chemicals is allowed to be in baby pacifiers...but they have a limit



What the hell.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I know lambskin is safe, but who seriously has that kind of cash? Those are crazy expensive. I wonder if polyurethane or AT-10 resin condoms have the same problem?....At least I assume latex is the notorious culprit, since that would explain why it's most types of condoms. Though I could be wrong. With my kind of luck the synthetics are probably worse, now that I think about it.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

In any case I don't use condoms, never did, never will
not even in high school or college
I prefer the withdrawal method and i've had a 100% success rate so far
It takes alot of discipline though


I had no idea the pull out method prevented STD's.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Here's a link from the National Toxicology Program;



N-Methyl-N′-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) is reasonably an‑
ticipated to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals.


ntp.niehs.nih.gov...



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
A few months ago I digged around to learn about condoms dangers but couldn't find anything. I had my doubts though. When you piece together the AIDS origins (threat) with the condom publicity/lobotomy (solution) and the depopulation theory (motive) , you end up with a credible but creepy story which I think could be a reality.

Think about it. Let's say you plan to decrease the population and your goal is to remain unseen, unheard and out jail.

First let's do some weird experiences in some third world country, away from cameras and behind a medical purpose cover. Second let's inject "our" deadly crap into black people and let them pass on our virus baby to everyone.

What do we have here in the first steps?

1. A deadly virus made up behind the scenes ==> threat
2. A mysterious origin ==> probably black people eating or f*cking with monkeys (culprits to blame) or maybe a natural mutation of the virus? ("can't be us, we 're here to help")

Third let's propose our solution to the threat. But this solution should still fit the original depopulation goal and so can't be cured once for all. So as it's not curable let's come with a long term product, a little bandaid on the virus, that would make us RICH, labeled as SAVIORS but that slowly gets people to DIE in a way or another. Great, here we are.

What we have now?

3. Condoms ==> Used for "safe" sex, cost a lot of money (RICH+++). Avoid women to get pregnant (depopulation goal achieved). Now according to this study from OP, condoms are carcinogens. (depopulation goal 2 achieved).

4. Side effects and medical profits ==> Either you get cancer or HIV, the big pharma wallet keeps growing and you die anyway in a fight for life, swallowing expensive pills for the rest of your days. (Saviors + rich rich richhhh)

So long story short, we create a virus, start rumours about its origins that keep us unexposed. People don't die if they use a rubber so maybe we should come up with some killer condoms? Yeah good idea. People can either die of HIV or cancer, cool man! The best part? We'll be swimming forever in those pills worshippers money forever!

HIV was proven to be man made, depopulation seems to be a reality, big pharma schemings are no more a secret. So this theory seems totally plausible to me but not saying it's the truth though.

It's a perfect plan if you ask me. But perhaps I'm crazy nuts.
And I wouldn't be surprised if condoms were found to alter fertility as well... (depopulation goal 3 achieved)

Peace

sorry my post is messy but it's early AM

edit on 17-7-2012 by CityFarmer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Everything is a carocinogen now. Frozen food gives us cancer, aspartame gives us cancer. Did you know cancer gives you cancer?

Condoms can give us cancer apparently. But so does love without a glove. Thanks to HPV, no cervix is safe from evil, evil semen. But if the man is clean, a pregnancy can occur (pull out or no pull out). Condoms are our cheapest and, hey, most fetus-friendly form of population control. Let's not label them with the big "C" scare the masses unless they name the cancer-free-guaranteed brands. Otherwise, we get MORE pregnant teens and MORE STDs because of some people are trying to avoid cancer. Cancer, of course, that we can get from doing anything nowadays.

Why does everything fun lead to cancer? Jeez.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 


I've heard that the pull-out method is the most unreliable method for birth control.

For starters, unless you have really, really good control over your PC muscle, you can't predict your level of arousal. If you're really aroused, your body will get there before your mind has a chance to catch up.

I've only ever had sex once without a condom once. The odd thing is, the woman I slept with later became pregnant from some other guy because her BC failed and she didn't want the guy wearing a condom. If I could trade places, I'd be that kid's father because his real father is a deadbeat.

Anyway, just saying.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
It's one thing for the government to poison me or to steal my money on a daily basis to to destroy the earth in every way possible and then blame it all on me for breathing...but giving my girlfriend mouth cancer is going way too far.



edit on 17-7-2012 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I knew there was a reason I disliked those damn things



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

Call me biased, but the fact that the report came from Germany overrides the fact that it was a Catholic funded news agency. They're the type who are prone to take the money and not hold any grudges towards the pea brains who gave it to them.



And you're the type who are prone to make ridiculous generalizations about whole nationalities.
edit on 17-7-2012 by thoiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


I also am suspicious of most studies, and their objectives, but regardless of your opinion behind the motives on this study...N-Nitrosamine is a proven carcinogen. So whether or not the Vatican or any other fringe groups had anything to do with this study is a moot point.

The money trail will also not change the fact that N-Nitrosamine is a known carcogenic, so once again regardless of whatever intentions the people behind this study had, their is some science behind it and these condoms are toxic, especially after constant long term use.

Another poster made a good point where these condoms would be much more harmful for women so even though I don't consider the results of this study to affect me directly, there is a serious possibility for this cancer causing chemical to make a lot of people sick.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join