Vaginal gel cuts HIV-infections by half

[Robert_S]

A lot of Africans don't wear condoms because the Pope tell 'em it's evil, this gel's better than nothing.

Also because condoms suck.

Seriously, bareback sex is vastly superior to sex with a condom. Get in a committed relationship, get tested, and get her on the pill. It's so worth it.

Having sex with a condom is like someone who wears glasses going to the theatre without them.

That being said, sex with a condom is vastly superior to AIDS. I'd just think it's worth pointing out that I am no fan of the condom for anything but its prophylactic properties, and I'm not surprised Africans hate it either. People always act like Africans are barbarians or stupid or uneducated or religious fanatics everytime they don't use a condom: well maybe they just don't fucking like them.

Informative

[mistermack]

1 - Anyone who uses a condom is not going to switch to a gel, Mackintosh, because they'll already know this. It's one of the wonderful things about medicine, information is available.

Oh I seeeeeeee, if you know something, you do what's sensible!!! I didn't realise that. So the people who are having unprotected sex don't know about aids eh? I expect no-one in Africa has heard of it then.

Or maybe people know things are dangerous, and still do them? Because they think it won't happen to them?
People would switch from condoms for loads of reasons.
1) The pope says they are a sin
2) If the women are on the game, they get paid more
3) Condoms probably cost more
4) More fun, less embarassment, and less floppy dick.
5) Used condoms are mega yuk.

So forgive me if I don't accept that people won't switch, just because you say so.

2 - If knew anything, you'd realise that places like Africa would benefit more from the introduction of this Gel as common use even if everyone who did use condoms switched out.

Again, I suppose it's true, just because you say so? Nothing to back it up?
Aids is mainly spread by HIV+ prostitutes and their clients. If a prostitute is already HIV+, she has no incentive to use anything. If the clients stop using condoms because they think they are protected, they are highly likely to catch it, and spread it round. And who is to say they will all use the 'real' gel, when there will be money to be made making black market fakes? One third of the price with no active ingredient? You can't really do that with condoms.
HIV infection is slowing at the moment in much of Africa, because the condom message has got through. Something like this gel could set that back to zero.
.

[Trolldor]

lol.

You are hilarious BigMac, especially given your opening statements and then the swirl of bullshit which follows.

[mistermack]

Yes, the great part about the gel is for women who are in marriages or relationships where they are not "allowed" to use any kind of protection, because of the 12 hour period it means they could use it without the men knowing and at least provide some kind of chance for themselves. It's a huge step.

I don't get the logic there. Why would the partner object to a gel? I can see why men might refuse to wear a condom, but I don't can't see why they would object to a gel.
.

[mistermack]

lol.

You are hilarious BigMac, especially given your opening statements and then the swirl of bullshit which follows.

I see, you've got no valid argument, so all you've got left is some abuse. You could at least try to make it witty, or maybe you haven't got the wit.
.

[Pappa]

Yes, the great part about the gel is for women who are in marriages or relationships where they are not "allowed" to use any kind of protection, because of the 12 hour period it means they could use it without the men knowing and at least provide some kind of chance for themselves. It's a huge step.

I don't get the logic there. Why would the partner object to a gel? I can see why men might refuse to wear a condom, but I don't can't see why they would object to a gel.
.

Some people are just unreasonable.

[nellikin]

I would be worried about the long-term efficacy of something like this. The fact that the efficacy drops by 10% after a further 18 months of use indicates that prolonged exposure may somehow induce a resistance, or something of the sort. This could potentially produce new strains of more resistant viruses - something like a "super-AIDS" equivalent to the multi-antibiotic resistant bacterial strains we have bred through overuse of antibiotics...

(I personally advocate monogamous sex solely after marital bonds are established and then only for procreation, just as god intended it to be)

[RuleBritannia]

Aids is mainly spread by HIV+ prostitutes and their clients.

Citation needed.

[mistermack]

Aids is mainly spread by HIV+ prostitutes and their clients.

Citation needed.

If you really need one, you'll have to find it yourself. I can point to the fact that multiple partners means multiple chances of infection, so prostitution is obviously a spreader. I would say that that is common sense. Also, I remember when aids was first spreading in South Africa, studies were done showing it was spreading along the main highways, because truckers were visiting prostitutes on their travels and taking it to new parts.
It's hardly being spread by faithful monogamous couples, now is it?

The problem of the original post is that there isn't enough information.
It gives the impression that this is some kind of answer, but look what it says.
The figures are for WOMEN only, who have an infected partner. It doesn't say if it does anything to prevent a man catching HIV from an infected woman.
And it doesn't say what protection it would give to an active prostitute, but going on the decreasing effectiveness with time for a woman with an infected partner, I wouldn't hold out much hope that it would give any meaningful improvement to infection in prostitutes.
Some of them get through as much sex in a day as many women would get in a month.
.
.

[devogue]

Mmmm "vagina"

+1

[RuleBritannia]

Aids is mainly spread by HIV+ prostitutes and their clients.

Citation needed.

If you really need one, you'll have to find it yourself. I can point to the fact that multiple partners means multiple chances of infection, so prostitution is obviously a spreader. I would say that that is common sense. Also, I remember when aids was first spreading in South Africa, studies were done showing it was spreading along the main highways, because truckers were visiting prostitutes on their travels and taking it to new parts.
It's hardly being spread by faithful monogamous couples, now is it?

The problem of the original post is that there isn't enough information.
It gives the impression that this is some kind of answer, but look what it says.
The figures are for WOMEN only, who have an infected partner. It doesn't say if it does anything to prevent a man catching HIV from an infected woman.
And it doesn't say what protection it would give to an active prostitute, but going on the decreasing effectiveness with time for a woman with an infected partner, I wouldn't hold out much hope that it would give any meaningful improvement to infection in prostitutes.
Some of them get through as much sex in a day as many women would get in a month.
.
.

Oh I see, you write a load of crap, then I have to find the evidence to back it up - LOL, fail.

[mistermack]

Oh I see, you write a load of crap, then I have to find the evidence to back it up - LOL, fail.

Well, if I was to call something a load of crap, I would try to have the decency to give my reasoning.
So I'm afraid you fail on common decency grounds.
.

[RuleBritannia]

Oh I see, you write a load of crap, then I have to find the evidence to back it up - LOL, fail.

Well, if I was to call something a load of crap, I would try to have the decency to give my reasoning.
So I'm afraid you fail on common decency grounds.
.

No, everything you write are assertions and you expect me to find the evidence to back it up? It's ridiculous.

[mistermack]

Oh I see, you write a load of crap, then I have to find the evidence to back it up - LOL, fail.

Well, if I was to call something a load of crap, I would try to have the decency to give my reasoning.
So I'm afraid you fail on common decency grounds.
.

No, everything you write are assertions and you expect me to find the evidence to back it up? It's ridiculous.

No, I don't expect anything. This is a forum for opinions. It was you who wrote "citation required", I didn't claim I had references for every opinion I write down. What do you think this is, a university dissertation?
It's a forum. If you want citations, get em yourself.
.

[RuleBritannia]

Oh I see, you write a load of crap, then I have to find the evidence to back it up - LOL, fail.

Well, if I was to call something a load of crap, I would try to have the decency to give my reasoning.
So I'm afraid you fail on common decency grounds.
.

No, everything you write are assertions and you expect me to find the evidence to back it up? It's ridiculous.

No, I don't expect anything. This is a forum for opinions. It was you who wrote "citation required", I didn't claim I had references for every opinion I write down. What do you think this is, a university dissertation?
It's a forum. If you want citations, get em yourself.
.

This is not an opinion:

Aids is mainly spread by HIV+ prostitutes and their clients.

It is an assertion.