Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
As your editorial states, it is indeed worrying to note that some
people at risk of sexually transmitted HIV choose pre or post exposure
chemoprophylaxis to protect themselves from infection. Such behaviour is
irresponsible and not comparable to the judicious use of post exposure
prophylaxis after needle stick injury in the emergency department.
Cassell et al (BMJ 2006; 332:605-607 March 11 ) have it right when
their final word states 'Programming to change the sexual behaviour will
remain fundamental to preventing the spread of HIV'. It is good to see
that the lessons from Uganda are receiving some attention. While one
was a voice in the wilderness over 5 years ago (Rapid response BMJ 2000
November 27 - The problem is ignorance ),it is gratifying to note that
the central importance of behaviour modification is now recognized.
Those of us who graduated in the 40's and 50's can well remember when
routine screening for TB and syphilis was part of every hospital
admission. It seemed mind boggling later when similar screening for HIV
was opposed on the grounds that this disease was unique and exceptional.
Living dangerously
As your editorial states, it is indeed worrying to note that some
people at risk of sexually transmitted HIV choose pre or post exposure
chemoprophylaxis to protect themselves from infection. Such behaviour is
irresponsible and not comparable to the judicious use of post exposure
prophylaxis after needle stick injury in the emergency department.
Cassell et al (BMJ 2006; 332:605-607 March 11 ) have it right when
their final word states 'Programming to change the sexual behaviour will
remain fundamental to preventing the spread of HIV'. It is good to see
that the lessons from Uganda are receiving some attention. While one
was a voice in the wilderness over 5 years ago (Rapid response BMJ 2000
November 27 - The problem is ignorance ),it is gratifying to note that
the central importance of behaviour modification is now recognized.
Those of us who graduated in the 40's and 50's can well remember when
routine screening for TB and syphilis was part of every hospital
admission. It seemed mind boggling later when similar screening for HIV
was opposed on the grounds that this disease was unique and exceptional.
James E Parker
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests