How To Prevent HIV By Not Preventing HIV

 

Government rejects HIV prevention drug, was our news headline on Monday. Yes. A drug that does not cause but actually prevents HIV was coming to Uganda, and the government said “No. Go away. Do not come here where we have HIV infections that need prevention.”

The reasons given, eventually, after a lot of newsprint poking me in the eye with mwawa were these, from Dr Alex Ario of the Ministry of Health. “He cited moral issues and cost as some of the factors that do not favour introducing pre-exposure prophylaxis in Uganda,” said the Vision. “They feared that this strategy, if adopted in Uganda would instead encourage more promiscuity and cause the battle against HIV/ AIDS to backfire.”

This whole thing looks so bassackwards and twisted and convoluted and upsdydownsy that it is making the Prozac in my head de-atomise. Are they saying that safe sex causes HIV? As in if you allow safe sex methods into the country, HIV infection will rise?  I am trying to see how the situation will play out.

“Oh, I’d like to hit that, but she has HIV.”

“No sweat, son. Use this drug.”

“Thanks, good looking out, dawg.”

(Later)

“So how was it?”

“Awesome.”

“So, did you get HIV?”

“No, I used the drug.”

“Sweet.”

How is this causing the battle against AIDS to backfire?

Or is that Ario of The Health Ministry believes that if we have NO WAY of preventing HIV transmission, people won’t be promiscuous?

If so, has  he ever met any people? With genitals?

How does anyone come to conclude that the best way to prevent HIV transmission is to prevent  drugs that prevent HIV transmission?

 

I blame caning in schools. It is all because of kiboko.

I think that all those beatings we got in school are the ones that shaped our minds in this crooked way; we were caned for not tucking in our shirts, but never caned for making fun of other kids’ tribes; we were caned for chewing gum but never caned for bullying.

We grew up as a society with that sense of what is right and wrong—wrong had nothing to do with what was actually harmful or destructive or mean or unkind. Right had nothing to do with what was beneficial, or generous, or giving, or self-sacrificial, or compassionate, or empathetic or understanding or good.

It was all about what the authority figures of our youth whipped into us.

That theory would explain why it seems that Ario sees it as his righteous duty to not abet promiscuity and that he seems to place this duty above his job of preventing HIV infections.

The feeling that protecting Ugandans from HIV could lead to increased promiscuity appears to cause him to compromise his actual job in favour of his perceived morals.

And that is where it gets truly ridiculous. Because the one thing that these choirboys don’t see with their blinkered eyes is that people who engage in high-risk sexual behavior don’t give a crap. In a country where a dude will have live sex with a hooker for an extra two thousand, you think the same chaps will be all like, “Man, I would have hit that poontang right there but since there is no drug to prevent HIV transmission I guess I will just take a cold shower.”

That is why I propose that we send Ario to UBC to head the Children’s programming section and replace him with people who actually know how the penis works.

You may also enjoy...