Why the proposed HIV microbicide gel will actually increase, not reduce the overall HIV transmission rates
Posted: August 15th, 2006 | Author: Jeff | Filed under: Health/Medicine | 1 Comment »It is apparent from reading this recent article that Bill and Melinda Gates have fallen into the logic trap of assuming that “Women key to fighting AIDS” + “more preventative measures for women” necessarily equals an overall reduced HIV transmission rate among the general population. I could see a likely scenario where this actually backfires and results in higher rates of infection.
There’s no substitute for promoting awareness of HIV protection (the use of condoms). We know that those who are poor or less educated are more likely to catch and spread HIV. The rate of new cases in the middle class is alarming too. And assuming that the low and middle classes are mostly comprised of individuals of below-average to average intelligence, the majority of the population may actually think that the use of the women’s gel can replace the use of the condom during sexual intercourse. Most probably won’t understand that this woman’s gel only works if the woman does not already have HIV. If the woman already has HIV and she uses this gel, the male more than likely will not be wearing a condom. Because many women are ignorant of their carrier status, many may perceive using the gel as more beneficial to them (allows more sensitivity) than the condom, this would actually be putting more men at risk since it does not appear–from the article–that this gel protects males from contracting HIV!
Because the mechanism for prevention is one-way only, introducing the women’s gel will provide a false sense of security to users. It will also confuse and dilute the message of the importance of having protected sex using condoms, I think.
You bring up a good point, but the article doesn’t say either way if the man is protected or not. Men usually contract HIV from blood contact, either from anal fissures, ovulation, or lacerations on the penis.
The gel acts as “living” plant cells in which the HIV virus cannot replicate and thereby infect the T-Cells. If not this way it “sufficates” the HIV virus from reaching other human cells as a blocking device as it self-replicates.
In any case, even with the use of the gel, the users should still use condoms on the mere fact that safe sex is what it is. Just like how women with birth control are still urged to use condoms even though the prevention rate is over 99.9%
From the article, it does seem if the gel sufficates the HIV virus, it would work on the man too. Since his penis would be covered in the gel. So if you put some gel on say… a superficial cut, have unprotected sex with a gelled up HIV+ woman on birth control, your chances of infection would be greatly reduced, if the gel does work as well as they claim.