2012-03-29, 12:22 PM
Viaje Wrote:A couple issues with that statement (that lead to my issue with the article).
If the 'splinter' in this scenario is reproductive-cable sperm, then labeling it as the "cause" of HIV is inaccurate.
In fact, it's not even a method of transmission; semen is.
Now, the idea that this procedure would have the side-effect of destroying HIV in semen is still all theory.
Even the study that the article links to is just an abstract, an abstract from 2005 no less, and I can't find anything anywhere that shows any evidence that that study concluded that the procedure would eliminate HIV in semen.
The best I can find is that the study is seemingly on-going.
Assuming that the study does conclude that the procedure eliminates HIV in semen, it would no doubt be an amazing step in preventing further transmission of the disease, it wouldn't affect the risk of infection through other fluids.
As far as being a just a birth-control method, I only really see this particular procedure being really useful in a long-term, monogamous relationship. Then it's great because I know how much birth-control pills can alter a person.
Otherwise, the most recommended method of contraception is using condoms because they have the added bonus of preventing STI transmission.
Nah i wasn't suggesting anything but the sperm was causing it (well, mostly sperm, anyway). Was just trying to be clever is all. I wasn't really for it just because it claimed to eliminate HIV, it was just an added benefit of the procedure even if it didn't actually eliminate it 100%.
And yeah, i only really saw it useful for long term monogamous relationships too. Random sex is still really dangerous and it's not like condoms in that case would be expensive or unwise.

