A new study published in Science claims that funds for HIV prevention (like most funds directed at Africa, cynics might argue) are being wasted. Telling people to use condoms doesn’t work, they say; asking them not to have sex is religion-inspired lunacy; testing for HIV has had little impact so far (although forthcoming research on this from UCLA is much more promising); and treating other sexually transmitted infections does not stop the most dangerous one of them all.
The study authors recommend that funds instead be diverted towards male circumcision and efforts to stop people having multiple sexual partners at the same time. Being circumcised reduces men’s risk of HIV infection by 60%. In the long term this will also benefit their female partners. Unlike condoms, you only have to get circumcised once, rather than remembering to do it every time you have sex (ouch). Unlike condoms too, circumcision doesn’t reduce pleasure (despite the religious lobby’s attempts to argue that it does – see this site which says circumcision only “slightly” reduces HIV risk!).
Persuading people to slow down their bed-hopping is also sensible, and it has worked in Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire and a few other oases. The risk of infecting someone else with HIV is greatly increased in the period immediately after infection – if you wait a while before sleeping with someone else, your viral load will have subsided sufficiently to reduce the risk sharply. This doesn’t happen enough in Africa, and combined with an absence of circumcision in the hardest hit regions it has been a major driver of the epidemic’s spread. Will anyone listen? They have a fairly strong lobby to contend with if they do, but at least those who fight against condoms should be pleased. Here’s hoping they don’t all jump on the anti-circumcision bandwagon instead.
