So I have this Doctor saying the condom is practically useless

[Primo]

against the Aids-Virus. She arguments that if Sperma can go through the condom in a few cases (Pearl index: 2% of pregnancy even with perfect use of a condom, 15% with the normal use - source), the very smaller HIV-Virus can pass through the condom in most cases.

She also says that the "uselessness" of the condom against the virus is due to the cristal structure of the condom being bigger than the structure of the virus. She also claims that any doctor should know this.

However, I am somewhat hard pressed to believe this, so my question is:

Does anyone have a bit more info about it?

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think the condom has a high rate of protection for HIV virus around 90%...

[Vizsla]

I don’t believe it. What kind of doctor? Where? Where did they train?

I had a flatmate once who claimed that he couldn’t use a condom without it bursting. I never found the right conversational moment to get details on positions and that sort of thing. He seemed to walk normally enough, so as far as I could tell his bollocks were regularly sized. I always thought that was the main danger.

[Primo]

I don’t believe it. What kind of doctor? Where? Where did they train?

I had a flatmate once who claimed that he couldn’t use a condom without it bursting. I never found the right conversational moment to get details on positions and that sort of thing. He seemed to walk normally enough, so as far as I could tell his bollocks were regularly sized. I always thought that was the main danger.

I won´t share personal informations about someone else, sorry.

Her arguments seem to be easily (de)provable, thats why I asked here if anyone knows more.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

The condom is never 100% safe therefore dont stick your manhood into a dirty well

[Adar]

First of all, condoms doesn't even have a rigid crystal structure.

It consists of polymers binding to each other by hydrogen bonds and van der Waals interactions. The average length of a hydrogen bond between molecules is 0.2 nanometers so the idea that viruses would be able to pass through them is completely irrational to anyone with even limited knowledge of molecular biology. There may however be imperfections in the material that could cause leakage. According to this scientifc study only 2.4 % of the tested condoms were leaking 27 nm particles (HIV virus is bigger than 200 nm which makes it roughly 10 times larger) and only a single condom was leaking enough to be considered potentially infectious.

Abstract of the article I linked

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An in vitro evaluation of condoms as barriers to a small virus


AbstractBACKGROUND:

Because of the possible presence of small holes, the effectiveness of condoms as barriers to virus transmission is controversial.
GOALS:

To determine the proportion of condoms that allow virus penetration and the amounts of virus that penetrate.
STUDY DESIGN:

A sensitive, static test was used to evaluate different condom types as barriers to a small virus, including brand with or without lubrication and ones of different materials. The test included some physiologic-based parameters and some parameters that exaggerated expected actual use conditions.
RESULTS:

Under test conditions, 2.6% (12 of 470) of the latex condoms allowed some virus penetration; the median level of penetration was 7 x 10(-4) ml. Lubricated condoms performed similarly to nonlubricated ones. Polyurethane condoms yielded results higher than but not statistically different from those for latex condoms.
CONCLUSIONS:

Few condoms allowed any virus penetration. The median amount of penetration for latex condoms when extrapolated to expected actual use conditions was 1 x 10(-5) ml (volume of semen). Thus, even for the few condoms that do allow virus penetration, the typical level of exposure to semen would be several orders of magnitude lower than for no condom at all.
PIP:

Nine brands and 470 samples of latex condoms and two brands and 76 samples of polyurethane condoms bought from retail distributors were tested in vitro for their ability to block the penetration of virus. A sensitive, static test apparatus was designed for and used in the evaluation. The test included some physiological-based parameters as well as some which exaggerated the expected actual use conditions. Both lubricated and nonlubricated condoms were tested. Before testing, however, most of the lubrication was removed from the lubricated condoms through rinsing with Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline and blotting with sterile paper towels. The 0X174 bacteriophage of 27 nm particle diameter, 32 nm including its bulky spikes, was used as the proxy challenge virus. Under test conditions, 12 of the latex condoms (2.6%) allowed some virus penetration of median quantity 0.0007 ml. Just two of the latex condoms were responsible for 99.8% of the total penetration among latex condoms overall. The performance of lubricated condoms was similar to that of nonlubricated ones. Four of the polyurethane condoms allowed penetration, but only one condom was responsible for 98.6% of total penetration. The difference in performance between latex and polyurethane condoms is not statistically significant. The median amount of penetration for latex condoms when extrapolated to expected actual use conditions was 0.00001 ml of semen. Therefore, even for the few condoms which allow virus penetration, the typical level of exposure to semen is several orders of magnitude lower than the amount of exposure expected when not using a condom.

There are essentially two ways to get HIV while using a condom.

1) Cracks in the material. Essentially means that the condom is broken and is going to let through virus particles and most likely also sperm. Production faults are rare as shown above but old condoms can also suffer from this if they dry up.

2) Faulty usage. Condoms are incredibly resilient to blunt force and also got great elasticity. You can for example take a condom and pull it over a 2 L coke bottle and it is pretty much only going to break if there are sharp edges on the cap. But none of this helps against human stupidity. Putting the condom on halfway during the intercourse or using something sharp to open the package are great ways to get children or an HIV infection.

Studying the effectiveness of condoms in real life applications is of course rather hard but there are a huge amount of studies. People who claim to always use a condom while having sex are according to aggregate reviews 80-90 % less likely to be infected by HIV. Even without a condom there is a rather low likelihood that you will get HIV from a single intercourse so if there was a 1 % risk of getting HIV and a 1 % risk of condom failure then you would have 1/100*1/100 risk of HIV transmission (ie one in 10 000).

In medical research this kind of study isn't possible and the 80-90 % reduction I mention is based on 100 man years with intercourse twice per week which is the measurement used in the 2nd study.

Two scientific reports I think you can access.

1) A report regarding all kinds of viral STDs

2) A meta-study focused on HIV.

[Sphere]

Here is a simple test

Fill a condom up with water, a molecule with a size on the order of a single oxygen atom, and see if leaks.

Then consider that HIV is a structure containing hundreds of atoms and we can get an idea of how far off base the OP's doctor is.

[Vanoi]

You need a new doctor.

[Primo]

You need a new doctor.

It is someone I know from somewhere, I am not her patient.

[Phier]

Ask your doctor this question.

If she were forced to have sex with an HIV infected man, would she go condom or no condom?

If she answers no condom, shes an idiot, find a new doctor.
If she answers condom, shes still an idiot based on what you said she said, find a new doctor.

I've found this sort of thinking in non-medical people before, doctors are usually better. They seem to think anything which isn't 100% effective is therefore useless. Normally I find it in people who want to justify their personal behavior.

This review indicates that consistent use of condoms results in 80% reduction in HIV incidence. Consistent use is defined as using a condom for all acts of penetrative vaginal intercourse. Because the studies used in this review did not report on the "correctness" of use, namely whether condoms were used correctly and perfectly for each and every act of intercourse, nor did they report on the quality of the condoms used, effectiveness and not efficacy is estimated. Also, this estimate refers in general to the male condom and not specifically to the latex condom, since studies also tended not to specify the type of condom that was used.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cl...en&as_sdt=0,14

[Pontifex Maximus]

Then again, do you really need a degree in medicine to figure out that unless you want to take a chance and risk exposure to the virus, you shouldn't stupp people who have it?

[Primo]

Ok. Pretty muched solved it. I see whether I will point her to the posted sources or not.

Thanks for the answers. A doctor stating this as "given facts" threw me off a bit.

[Sphere]

This is a gross generalization with essentially no foundation, but since this is TWC I won't let such things stop me.

By in large the study and practice of medicine is rather more esoteric than people think. Because of the incredible complexity involved in human biology, study in the fundamentals of physics and chemistry have to quickly give way to the emperical and anecdotal. This becomes an exercise in memorization and abstract evaluation, which while absolutely crucial to effectively diagnosing and treating patients, is a rather narrow form of knowlege.

In short, training as a medical doctor is a lot different than training in chemistry, physics and to a lesser extent engineering. With the later three more study means diving deeper first principles, learning methods that are less and less empirical, which is in contrast to the former.

[Phier]

Crystal condoms do have a nice marketing flare I think though.

[Ludicus]

So I have this Doctor saying the condom is practically useless

Are you sure? a doctor? I find it hard to believe.

[chamaeleo]

Crystal condoms do have a nice marketing flare I think though.

What next: magnetic cock rings?

[Phier]

What next: magnetic cock rings?

No.

Hologram cockrings!



And you know what horrible. THIS WOULD ACTUALLY SELL

I hate people so much.

[Manco]

Any doctor who goes from "not a 100% effective" to "useless" should hand in all their diplomas, including their high school one.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

A medicine man in the rain forest more like

[Halie Satanus]

Condoms are the second most effective way of protecting yourself against contracting the HIV virus. The first is to not have sex.

If you are really worried you can buy stronger condoms specifically designed for anal sex.

Oh, and your doctor friend is an idiot, or not a medical doctor.