It has been a well-known fact for at least two decades among scientists, researchers, AIDS activists and the gay man on the street that condoms save lives.

Proper use of a condom remains the most effective way to prevent sexual transmission of the HIV virus. It’s such old news, it’s totally boring.

But there is the real threat that a new piece of research information about condoms could be taken out of context, and that it could be used by foes of condoms—both from within the circles of the religious conservatives, and from within the gay community—in an effort to undermine the message that condoms save lives.

We must not fall into a knee-jerk reaction, and let the long, scientific record of condom safety be tossed aside by either an honest misunderstanding of this new scientific tidbit—or a willful attempt to spread misinformation about condoms in an attempt to undermine their popular and widespread use.

The new information comes from a study just released by the Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute in Stuttgart, Germany. According to this study, most condoms contain trace elements of a substance called N-Nitrosamine.

Condom manufacturers use N-Nitrosamine to help make condoms more elastic. However, according to the study, when the rubber material of condoms comes in contact with body fluids and sweat, it can cause the condoms to release small amounts of N-Nitrosamine, and thus expose people to it.

Other studies have shown that N-Nitrosamine can be a cancer-causing agent, and many rubber products that contain it, such as baby pacifiers, have tight controls governing the manufacturing process and how much N-Nitrosamine a human may be exposed to from such products.

To date, there are no controls or standards for N-Nitrosamine with respect to condoms manufacturing.

The researchers from the Chemical and Veterinary Investigation Institute have called for condom makers to put in place manufacturing controls for the substance.

Even better, they suggest that condom makers replace it altogether with other substances that can give condoms the same desired rubbery and elastic property. It’s possible to create elastic condoms without using N-Nitrosamine. A few condom makers already do. Of the 32 condom types tested in the German study, 29 used N-Nitrosamine, but three did not.

Of course, the alternative substances are more expensive.

Calls to monitor N-Nitrosamine levels in condoms, and for condom manufacturers to look to switch to other manufacturing methods that dispense with the substance, are reasonable and welcomed.

What would be disastrous, however, would be for people to misunderstand the German test results and leap to the conclusion that using condoms causes cancer.

Even the German researchers who did the study made it clear that they were not advocating that people stop using condoms and that levels of N-Nitrosamine found in condoms in the study did not pose immediate risks to users.

And the branch of the German government that deals with health concerns also made it a point to say they were not advocating that people stop using condoms.

Unfortunately, there are at least two groups that would be more than happy to twist the findings in a way that might make people think that condoms cause cancer, and to spread that misinformation in hopes of seeing the demise of the condom and its widespread use.

Conservatives, particularly religious-inspired ones who do not believe in contraceptives, will likely jump on this new information as "proof" that condoms are a "health risk" to the public, as some of them have long claimed.

This group of people has vociferously attacked condom use, especially as part of safer-sex education for young people. Contrary to scientific evidence, they have always maintained that condoms are not an effective tool for preventing pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

The German study will no doubt give them more ammunition for this attack on the safer-sex message.

One of the primary goals of religious conservatives in this arena is to have condoms dropped altogether from courses that teach safer sex. Instead, these groups advocate going with what is known as the "abstinence-only" method, meaning they teach teenagers and young adults that the only foolproof way to, say, prevent HIV is to abstain from having sex.

Theoretically, that is actually true. But we all know that the rate at which teenagers lose their virginity is colossally higher than the rate at which condoms break.

But there is also another group that I fear might misunderstand, or even willfully manipulate the German study findings, and that includes some gay men.

One danger could be that some gay men simply misunderstand the findings. If incompletely or improperly reported, it isn’t too hard to see how some people might come to the conclusion that wearing condoms will give them cancer. And that could lead to fewer gay men using condoms, and thus more gay men putting themselves at the risk of contracting HIV.

And while it isn’t pleasant to contemplate, it is also possible that there are some gay men who don’t like using condoms in the first place could twist the findings of the study to convince their partners not to use protection.

It’s no secret that, for many gay men, condoms make getting an erection more difficult, or they make sex a little clumsier. To some guys, condoms are just a royal pain.

In my own personal experiences, I’ve known some guys who are into "barebacking" who gave every possible attempt and excuse and explanation to try to get me to engage in unsafe sex: They said they were HIV-negative, or they said they wouldn’t ejaculate in me, or they said condoms made them go soft, or they just said it felt better without it.

I can just hear someone quoting the mistruth that condoms are actually more dangerous than barebacking, because they cause cancer.

Condoms are still the best way to prevent the spread of a multitude of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. As gay men, we mustn’t let anybody—be they religious conservatives or barebackers—try to mislead us into believing otherwise.