It may be that in many places in Africa, men are a lot less respectful of women's wishes than in Western cultures, and that in far too many cases the female can neither insist he use a condom, nor refuse intercourse, even in "consenting" relationships.
This is a continent where there is an urban myth that having sex with an uninfected female cures HIV. Men who believe this will rape women and even babies (without condoms). When their infection isn't cured, they figure she must have had HIV so they rape someone else. It is also a continent where armies and gangs use rape on a massive scale as a tool to terrorize a given populace. So it is of utmost importantance to have an alternative to condoms.

It may be that in many places in Africa, men are a lot less respectful of women's wishes than in Western cultures, and that in far too many cases the female can neither insist he use a condom, nor refuse intercourse, even in "consenting" relationships.

That's a good point. In such instances it could definitely provide a benefit.

This is a continent where there is an urban myth that having sex with an uninfected female cures HIV. Men who believe this will rape women and even babies (without condoms).

Unfortunately, the prescribed need to apply the gel 12 hours before intercourse makes it all but useless for cases where rape is involved.

That's 12 hours before AND no more than 12 hours after. What needs to be studied here, apart from enlarging the current study, is whether or not using this gel only AFTER the act is also effective. If it is, or if it can be made effective, then not only can it be applied after a rape, it can also be applied just once, after a planned act of intercourse. That also means that it would be less expensive than having to use it twice, making it more accessible to all women everywhere. When you consider the far too-large proportion of this world in which families live on less than $1/day, that's a HUGE improvement.

Maybe I missed something...50% reduced risk of contracting AIDS...is that odds that you are willing to risk your lives on ( I hope not )...Is it better than nothing, not if it is going to be touted as an AIDS preventer...leading to even a slightly less cautious sexual lifestyle

25 million dead since '81, 35 million currently infected, in the future years this number will be billions...there is only one way to stop this, and its is long past time that we start discussing it....Total testing and Total Quarantine...Before it is to late

Old news...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viva_Gel

You are a moron. How ignorant can you be to think it's just a matter of 'self respect'. We're talking about nations where many women are sold or forced into marriage. They don't have the option to tell their husband to ' hot the road'. If they don't obey their husbands they are beaten or raped.
You should get a better understanding of how the world works outside North America.

You are a moron.

I'm willing to accept you're an authority on that subject.

How ignorant can you be to think it's just a matter of 'self respect'

How ignorant can you be to think that's what I stated. I specifically mentioned women exercising self respect as "The first hope of protection". Learn to read. Then explain where you came up with the fabrication that I in any way implied that "it's just a matter of 'self respect'".

We're talking about nations where many women are sold or forced into marriage.

I wasn't. My initial comment was in reference to the article, not the subsequent conversation in this vine that has wandered in various directions. Quoting the article:

The results need to be confirmed in another study, and that level of protection is probably not enough to win approval of the microbicide gel in countries like the United States, researchers say. But they are optimistic it can be improved.

Note that the article refers to the gel as a more general solution against the AIDS epidemic, not limited to countries where women are routinely sexually mistreated.

You should get a better understanding of how the world works outside North America.

That what I recommended as a first step isn't possible in every situation is something even a child could recognize. Thank you for flexing your mental skills in your reply. Perhaps you should overcome your need to attack other people's comments and learn to read them for what they are--rather than translating them through your own myopic opinions and then railing against the gibberish that results.

Since the article was written from the point of view that the whole world is the audience, then DaveB001 is right. Too many women in the western world still need to be reminded of that anyway. And a.w.riddels, BIOT I do not think 'they will ever get it'.

Wrong dave...apparently you don't spend much time in Sub-Saharan Africa, because your trite, idiotic comment has as it's premise, that these women have the right to choose whether or not they have sex. In Africa this premise is rarely true. As for the other comments, the testing is being done in Africa, (where it is cheap to do medical studies, and they don't have that silly problem with informed consent,) and the gel will most likley be targeted and marketed to and in Africa.
I could conditionaly accept your comments if speaking soley about westernized nations, but we make up less than 20% of the world's population. I say conditionaly, because the dynamics of a sexual relationship even in the west are muddled at best, leaving your particular moral high ground exposed to ridicule.
CLEARLY, the article was talking about a test on a drug meant to slow the expansion curve in Africa.
Perhaps a class in rhetoric at your local community college would help you respond more effectivley to news stories.

You take things very seriously.
Too seriously.
Get off the internet and get a life

HPV does not cause herpes it increases your chances of getting it. HSV-2 is genital herpes, herpes simplex virus 2 which is gential as opposed to simplex 1 which is oral and mostly appears as a cold sore on your mouth. You should really know what you're saying before you say and article is wrong, chances are they researched it and you obviously have no idea what your talking about.

Steph, I think Melenia is actually saying what you are saying. He/She said that 'HSV-2 does not cause genital warts, HPV does' which is true. And you came and said the same thing 'HPV does not cause herpes'....Melenia was just trying to clarify what the article said, which I think is confusing.

The gel aparently helps reduce warts, but they spoke of HSV-2 which is genetal herpes...

I looked into the study further and no indication has been made whether the risk of pregnancy with HIV positive partners is more or less likely to transmit the infection, only less possibility of transmission to the woman.

I'm not trying to be a poor sport but I just wanted to point that out.

If the woman doesn't contract HIV in the first place, then it stands to reason that her baby wouldn't be born HIV positive.

If the woman doesn't contract HIV in the first place, then it stands to reason that her baby wouldn't be born HIV positive.

Not even remotely true. Keep in mind that it takes two sets of genetic material to make a baby.

Of course that brings up another problem...Who's going to feed the healty babies?

Fine to start the yelling and racism thing, but curing AIDS, or Defending against HIV infection brings a whole new set of problems with it that need be addressed now, not when 100 million newly minted Africans are starving to death.

Or when they treat "A.I.D.S." as a word rather than an acronym, and spell it "Aids". The media - all over the world - could use some basic education on the terminology. Of course, the style guides they use are probably way out of date and automate a great deal of these "mistakes".

KJ1965 - semantics dude. As long as the people basically get the concept, is as much as you can hope for. Just be happy people are reading this. And be even more happy that strides are being made in the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But complaining about an issue like this, when the reality is they are terms that essentially get the point across, you're better off understanding that for the most part - most people - get the concept and don't relate misconceptions to the disease b/c of it. Sounds like you have a little too much time on your hands. Why dont you go volunteer at a GLBT center and get over your petty bs that in all reality means squat.

"HIV" = "The virus which causes AIDS" = "The AIDS virus" Yes, HIV is not the same as AIDS, but it is the same as the AIDS virus. Get it?

AIDS is not contagious? WHAT?! That's like saying the flu is not contagious, because it's really the flu virus which is contagious... whatever. You get AIDS because you are HIV positive, you infect someone else with HIV, they get AIDS... If that isn't a contagious disease, then I don't know what is.

KJ1965 - semantics dude. As long as the people basically get the concept, is as much as you can hope for.

Actually, it is very important to know the difference. For example, a person who merely has HIV and does not have a compromised immune system (AIDS) will have a vastly lower viral load, thereby being less likely to transmit the infection. AIDS patients need to be hospitalized, too.

Gundeck is a prime example of why we need to mince our words:

AIDS is not contagious? WHAT?! That's like saying the flu is not contagious, because it's really the flu virus which is contagious... whatever. You get AIDS because you are HIV positive, you infect someone else with HIV, they get AIDS... If that isn't a contagious disease, then I don't know what is.

Ignorance aside, Gundeck, you're totally incorrect. AIDS is an acronym for 'Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.' Syndromes cannot be passed. As a point for educational purposes, HIV is actually just another living organism trying to survive, but because of it's voracity and propagation, ends up killing it's host. AIDS is the condition that occurs as a result of a lost battle between the body's immune system and the virus, HIV propagates using the white blood cells, causing carriers of HIV to die of simple infections that our immune systems fight off every day.

So Gundeck, why don't you take your attitude and spew it somewhere else.

Dustin says

"For example, a person who merely has HIV and does not have a compromised immune system (AIDS) will have a vastly lower viral load"

My Question..."Can" a "single" Virus transfered from one person to another lead to A.I.D.S.???

My Question..."Can" a "single" Virus transfered from one person to another lead to A.I.D.S.???

That all depends on a number of variables. The most valid comparison is whether a common illness can lead to death. A few hundred years ago, a person was very likely to die from common illnesses that we consider mere inconveniences. The flu or a cold was frightening and perilous for many, and only from hundreds of years of experience in understanding how we should react (with rest, warmth, and simple OTC meds) has turned the tide on such deaths.

If you want to say HIV and AIDS are one in the same, then you need to do the same with any disease, as infections of any kind don't kill...they just leave your body unable to defend itself against bacteria.

a.w.riddels says:

My Question..."Can" a "single" Virus transfered from one person to another lead to A.I.D.S.???

Brushing aside Dustin's odd dancing around the issue, the answer is "yes", it can. Whether a virus succeeds in doing so is dependent on several issues involving what happens to that specific virus after it enters the body. As a result, some virii will fail to infect. But it only takes one virus successfully infecting a single cell to unleash thousands more in the body and start a chain reaction that can lead to a full scale HIV infection. There are statistical probabilities involved, but that's not the sort of numbers game you want to play if you can avoid it.

Dustin says:

For example, a person who merely has HIV and does not have a compromised immune system (AIDS) will have a vastly lower viral load"

It's misleading comments like this that lead to people engaging in risky behavior related to HIV exposure. A lower viral load isn't worth anything to the victim that is infected by an HIV carrier that "merely has HIV". Whether or not an HIV infected person's immune system has fully succumbed and they've developed AIDS does not change the reality that, as an HIV carrier, they are infectious at all times and a danger to anyone that comes in contact with their blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breastmilk, or embryonic fluid (if they are pregnant) since these fluids have been found to carry the highest amounts of of the virus. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either selling something, hiding something, or denying something. Learn the facts. Reject the apologist rhetoric.

DaveB001 your truthful analysis is 'politically incorrect'.

Brushing aside Dustin's odd dancing around the issue, the answer is "yes", it can.

Odd dancing around the issue? Anyone in a first world nation who contracts HIV will in fact survive and lead a normal life without experiencing a compromised immune system.

Whether a virus succeeds in doing so is dependent on several issues involving what happens to that specific virus after it enters the body. As a result, some virii will fail to infect. But it only takes one virus successfully infecting a single cell to unleash thousands more in the body and start a chain reaction that can lead to a full scale HIV infection. There are statistical probabilities involved, but that's not the sort of numbers game you want to play if you can avoid it.

So ignorance is the answer? FYI -- there are a great number of people out there who out of ignorance will knowingly sleep with an infected HIV carrier without protection simply because they do not understand it. On the flipside, it is important to understand that in the event of a condom break or an undisclosed infection, that there are options. If a person yields a low viral load and manages to pass fluids, the affected person can immediately start an anti-retroviral regimen prescribed by a doctor, which severely reduces the chance of infection. This is the same exact option taken by medical professionals who have encountered infected fluids by accident. This information is of course vital to everyone, especially rape victims.

Postexposure treatment of HIV has led to a vast decrease of new HIV infections from accidental exposure and sexual assault. If it weren't for the fact that we know now that anti-retrovirals can kill the virus before it propogates, this would not be possible.

http://canadianmedicaljournal.ca/cgi/content/full/162/5/641

http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/I-News/lang--en/WCMS_100938/index.htm

It's misleading comments like this that lead to people engaging in risky behavior related to HIV exposure.

Misleading? People understand the risks of unprotected sex yet continue to engage in such behavior, even with people who carry STDs and are expressive as such. Knowing the truth is better than not at all.

Whether or not an HIV infected person's immune system has fully succumbed and they've developed AIDS does not change the reality that, as an HIV carrier, they are infectious at all times and a danger to anyone that comes in contact with their blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breastmilk, or embryonic fluid (if they are pregnant) since these fluids have been found to carry the highest amounts of of the virus.

Just the same as anyone who has ever had any number of STDs is at high risk of transmitting a disease. As stated before, it is better to know the risks than not. You are most certainly not an expert in HIV education, so spare us your rhetoric.

Pandering to your own fear is not a source of fact, it is harmful to others and simply not welcome. You are not a professional in this regard so if you're going to debate, debate it only and refrain from talking as if you're the source of valid information.

Odd dancing around the issue? Anyone in a first world nation who contracts HIV will in fact survive and lead a normal life without experiencing a compromised immune system.

You seem to have a difficult time following your own comments. Here is the sort of 'dancing' you were doing:

If you want to say HIV and AIDS are one in the same, then you need to do the same with any disease, as infections of any kind don't kill...they just leave your body unable to defend itself against bacteria.

Your comment above tends to indicate that you have literally no idea what you are talking about from a medical standpoint.

Misleading? People understand the risks of unprotected sex yet continue to engage in such behavior, even with people who carry STDs and are expressive as such. Knowing the truth is better than not at all.

Yes. Thoroughly misleading. Your comment above has nothing to do with your statement that I quoted and responded to in post #5.7. I suggest you reread that post and try responding again.

Just the same as anyone who has ever had any number of STDs is at high risk of transmitting a disease. As stated before, it is better to know the risks than not.

Apparently you typed the above comment randomly, since no one has suggested that anyone should not learn about the risks. If you're going to use a straw man attack, at least try to make sound relevant to the current conversation.

You are most certainly not an expert in HIV education, so spare us your rhetoric.

You're a riot. In that case, you better stop posting and wait for an "expert in HIV education" to pop in and set the record straight, lest you look like a total hypocrite.

Pandering to your own fear is not a source of fact,

By all means, quote for me anything I've stated in this vine about HIV that is not factually accurate. All you've done is attack the facts I've brought up because they don't align with your personal opinion about how people should view this disease. Fact trumps you pandering to your own opinion about what other people should think. The stench of your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Your comment above tends to indicate that you have literally no idea what you are talking about from a medical standpoint.

Really? Because that is exactly what AIDS is, the total failure of the immune system as a result of becoming overwhelmed by the HIV virus. HIV patients don't die from the virus itself, they die from bacterial infections. Are you seriously going to suggest otherwise?

Yes. Thoroughly misleading. Your comment above has nothing to do with your statement that I quoted and responded to in post #5.7. I suggest you reread that post and try responding again.

They have every bit to do with one another. A patient with a low viral load is less likely to infect and in the case of transmission, something can actually be done to stop infection. You don't seem to be able to comprehend the text, should I record it verbatim as an MP3 and next day it to you so you can hear it aloud as well?

Apparently you typed the above comment randomly, since no one has suggested that anyone should not learn about the risks. If you're going to use a straw man attack, at least try to make sound relevant to the current conversation.

Actually, you did...it's right on the screen and hard to miss. I'll go into detail later in this post...

You're a riot. In that case, you better stop posting and wait for an "expert in HIV education" to pop in and set the record straight, lest you look like a total hypocrite.

Go right on ahead and get an expert in here. Here's the facts buddy, I started working with the local HIV/AIDS center 6 years ago, and through my involvement with the Red Cross also worked with the public on the HIV prevention program until last year.

By all means, quote for me anything I've stated in this vine about HIV that is not factually accurate. All you've done is attack the facts I've brought up because they don't align with your personal opinion about how people should view this disease. Fact trumps you pandering to your own opinion about what other people should think. The stench of your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

You haven't mentioned a single fact. You attacked what I wrote because you don't like people to know the gritty details...see the following:

There are statistical probabilities involved, but that's not the sort of numbers game you want to play if you can avoid it.

A lower viral load isn't worth anything to the victim that is infected by an HIV carrier that "merely has HIV".

Hence my correction that it does in fact matter.

Whether or not an HIV infected person's immune system has fully succumbed and they've developed AIDS does not change the reality that, as an HIV carrier, they are infectious at all times and a danger to anyone that comes in contact with their blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breastmilk, or embryonic fluid (if they are pregnant) since these fluids have been found to carry the highest amounts of of the virus.

You just chose to believe that my intent was to ignore the problem. You are on here merely to start arguments, and needed to bend someone else's word to begin one.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either selling something, hiding something, or denying something. Learn the facts. Reject the apologist rhetoric.

Funny, given that you suggested people "avoid it."

Here is what I said that put you into a trauma:

Actually, it is very important to know the difference. For example, a person who merely has HIV and does not have a compromised immune system (AIDS) will have a vastly lower viral load, thereby being less likely to transmit the infection

Now tell me again, what part about that suggests that people should go around having sex with every positive person they meet?

HIV patients don't die from the virus itself, they die from bacterial infections. Are you seriously going to suggest otherwise?

HIV patients can die from various types of infections, both bacterial and viral. That you repeatedly claim that they only die from bacterial infections indicates that you apparently don't know the difference between a bacteria and a virus.

A patient with a low viral load is less likely to infect and in the case of transmission, something can actually be done to stop infection.

Wow. You just don't get it. Read this carefully: An HIV infected patient is infectious with a deadly disease. Whether they are less likely to infect does not change the reality that they can and do infect others. Although there are some treatments available that can lessen the likelihood of infection in a person infected by someone with a "low viral load", nothing has been developed to eliminate that chance altogether. Preventing yourself from coming in contact with HIV is the only way to be truly safe from the disease.

I started working with the local HIV/AIDS center 6 years ago, and through my involvement with the Red Cross also worked with the public on the HIV prevention program until last year.

Which explains your somewhat militant and politically correct preoccupation with controllable risk rather than stressing outright prevention.

You haven't mentioned a single fact.

Ah, I didn't realize your reading comprehension was that limited. Perhaps I've been too hard on you. The following are facts:

But it only takes one virus successfully infecting a single cell to unleash thousands more in the body and start a chain reaction that can lead to a full scale HIV infection.

Whether or not an HIV infected person's immune system has fully succumbed and they've developed AIDS does not change the reality that, as an HIV carrier, they are infectious at all times and a danger to anyone that comes in contact with their blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breastmilk, or embryonic fluid (if they are pregnant) since these fluids have been found to carry the highest amounts of of the virus.

Your apparent personal agenda concerning the quality of life of HIV carriers does not change these realities.

You just chose to believe that my intent was to ignore the problem.

Everything in your comments indicates that your continue to do so. Based on your comments, you have yet to face up to the reality that HIV carriers are a lethal danger to others and do cause other people to die every day around the world, regardless of their viral load. In your years at the HIV/AIDS center, have you had the opportunity to comfort the relative of someone who died after being infected by an HIV carrier? Did you provide them with the reassurance that their dead relative ironically had a relatively low chance of dying because new treatments lowered their risk so much? My, how comforting that must be for those who beat the odds and win a case of AIDS from a carrier who was convinced by polically correct rhetoric that they were not that dangerous to those around them.

For example, a person who merely has HIV and does not have a compromised immune system (AIDS) will have a vastly lower viral load, thereby being less likely to transmit the infection
Now tell me again, what part about that suggests that people should go around having sex with every positive person they meet?

Oh certainly--why in the world would anyone associate the phrases "merely has HIV" and "less likely to transmit the infection" with the idea that "risky behavior" isn't really that risky?

What would happen if, while teaching a child about the dangers of crossing a street, you interject the idea that cars are merely small vehicles and that, thanks to medical advancements, braking technology and emerging pedestrian airbag technology, the chances are good that getting hit by a car won't kill them? Will that help them be safer, or will it water down the reality that they need to avoid being hit by a car? Think about it. Making the waters muddy doesn't make anyone safer.

Dustin - "Anyone in a first world nation who contracts HIV will in fact survive and lead a normal life without experiencing a compromised immune system."

Well, that's good news! So nobody in the USA dies of or even has AIDS. I must have missed the press release on that one.

Dustin - "Ignorance aside, Gundeck, you're totally incorrect. AIDS is an acronym for 'Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.' Syndromes cannot be passed."

Oh, I see. Oh, wait, what was that first word? "Acquired"? like something your not born with but is passed to you from someone else?

Dustin - "Because that is exactly what AIDS is, the total failure of the immune system as a result of becoming overwhelmed by the HIV virus."

It looks like you're saying the same thing I did, but for some reason the way I said it made you cry.

AVERT.ORG is another HOMOSEXUAL organization that PROMOTES HOMOSEXUAL AGENDAS, as do NAMBLA, GLAAD and LAMBDA.

Do NOT give your money to AVERT.ORG, or NAMBLA, GLAAD or LAMBDA.

That CDC Fact Sheet dated June, 2010, states the following:

• American homosexuals are 44 times more likely to be infected with HIV than heterosexuals.
• More than 279,000 American homosexuals have died, thus far, from AIDS.
• The rate of HIV infection among homosexuals has been INCREASING since the early 1990's.
• Homosexuals are the ONLY group of Americans for whom the rate of HIV infection is increasing.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

Extending the lives of the ONLY group of people who use the additional time to carelessly, if not deliberately, infect other people, is counterproductive. The CDC statistics speak for themselves: Helping homosexuals to live longer, is helping them to infect other people.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

http://www.nambla.org/

BigDee...

You know, I almost want to just assume you as a contributor to the discussion, except for the fact that you couch your "addition" to the topic by attempting to discredit and entire organization because it is possibly related to that bizarre right wing boogeyman: the "homosexual agenda," and that you somehow consider NAMBLA to have some pertinent relation to any of your assertions. Also, the figures you quote from the CDC are the same as the ones quoted from Avert...so I'm not understanding where you saw any "misleading" "agenda promoting" info here, unless you also think the CDC promotes said "agenda."

Here we go with the left and right bullcrap again. Get a life people.

Extending the lives of the ONLY group of people who use the additional time to carelessly, if not deliberately, infect other people, is counterproductive. The CDC statistics speak for themselves: Helping homosexuals to live longer, is helping them to infect other people.

Just remember, it was straight people that got everyone else into this mess.

Actually, there is also an issue in the use of the word "contagious." The common cold is "contagious" in that it is easily spread through casual contact. HIV is "infectious" in that it requires invasive contact and exposure to the virus through a bodily fluid coming into contact with the bloodstream.

As far as the difference between HIV and AIDS, yes, scientifically, there is a major distinction between the two, but on the colloquial we have established a tradition of not making much of a distinction between the two. Whether or not that helps or hurts the cause or awareness is debatable.

XMRV is only similar to HIV (not AIDS) in that it replicates the same way. The similarities are few and the viruses are actually quite distinct.

The link to CFS was proven incorrect, as multitudes of followup studies were not able to find XMRV infection in even one patient.

The only evidence about transmission is that in many cases of the infected, cells are present in the respiratory tract and respiratory expulsions (breathing).

XMRV does not, in fact, destroy the immune system. In many cases, studies have been able to find the proteins of XMRV infection in samples, proving that the host was able to successfully fight the infection.

The only substantive information about this virus is that it is likely to appear with a tumor and somewhat likely to appear with PROSTATE (not prostrate) cancer, we know it can be eliminated by the immune system, and we have been unable to find XMRV-specific antibodies in patients whose blood samples contain XMRV proteins and nucleic acids (indicating prior infection).

Don't cause unnecessary panic.

Thank you for the spell check - yes, "prostate" of course. I certainly do not want to cause panic. However I have to say that all of these "multitude" studies that "were not able to find XMRV infection in even one patient" were not replication studies, as you must know. They were not replication studies because they did not follow the the distinct and sensitive culture protocol that was used by Mikovits group that is critical to find this retrovirus as it is very difficult to find. The fact alone that they failed to find even one infection should tell you that. THe same thing happened years ago when Dr. Elaine DeFreitas found a retrovirus and others could not replicate the findings because they failed to follow her protocol. Not all the answers are in, there is still much to learn about how XMRV works but it does wreck havoc with the immune system shifting it to a Th2 imbalance. And few people with actual CFS/ME completely recover, with many living painful isolated lives barely able to care for themselves.

They were not replication studies because they did not follow the the distinct and sensitive culture protocol that was used by Mikovits group that is critical to find this retrovirus as it is very difficult to find.

I beg to differ. If any person were pressed to, they might find evidence of prior infection from many viruses in many people by searching for the proteins in a great number of samples from all the body's systems. An infection that the body's immune system cannot fight would present quickly and would be found easily. I believe the problem with her study is that she did not set her controls correctly, and likely found evidence of prior infection in some participants, as you would any number of patients (since we encounter viruses every day, all day).

Buahahahahaha!!!!! Yeah, because that works so well here!

You're a real piece of work, you know that? Let's all hope for a good banning! ;D

I'm sure they'll find another way to kill themselves.

I have all sorts of questions about the study itself too, I am hoping for the sake of ethics and common human decency if nothing else that it was a "field study" rather than an experiment, though of course as a field study there is less control of extraneous variables and the results are probably not as "valid." I am guessing they found a group of women who did not have HIV (though they can't even be 100% sure that the women who ended up contracting HIV during the period of the study contracted it while using the gel; they have to take their word for it), told them they were testing this cream to see if it would protect against HIV and for them to continue whatever their regular sexual patterns were (again, how can they be sure some of the women didn't change their sexual behaviors as a result of having access to this cream??), and then when they tested them again several months later (last I heard it can take several months for an HIV test to be positive, but maybe the response time has shortened with better testing?) they found out that the women using the gel had a lower incidence of HIV than the women either not using the gel or maybe using a placebo? A good control group would have to have a placebo, but then there is the ethical issue of giving a placebo when the medication being tested ought to be available to everyone. The whole study kind of stinks to me.

The results are from monitoring people who, though warned and offered protection, engaged in unsafe sex practices.

The people in Africa downright refuse to use contraception in most areas and the studies are done there because even though there is a health officer present pleading for safe sex practices, they do as they please and answer questions later.

I hate to sound cold but, if they're not going to bother trying to be safe (even with very vocal and distressing advice otherwise), why not observe and even pay them to try non-contraceptive treatment? I'd rather someone die and contribute to a cure than die merely out of plain stupidity.

That's simply vulgar and unnecessary.