The paper, though interesting, lacks clarity in several places. I am not sure if this is a research article. If it is, then it’s too short. If this is a short report type article, then the length is OK, but certain places must be elaborated to avoid confusion. Some revision is necessary before it can be published. Below I summarize my main reservations about this paper:

Major Compulsory Revisions

1. The title of the paper is incomplete. Just by reading the title it seems as if the public money for HIV is being wasted, or going to corrupt NGOs, or being pocketed by some interest groups, to going to church or some other places that no one knows! It opens up thousands of possibilities in the minds of the readers. Instead, the authors can be more specific to avoid creating this confusion and curiosity among readers. They can simply add after a colon (:) “The case of low versus high technology interventions,” or something like this that the authors deem most appropriate. But a subtitle is absolutely necessary to make the topic clearer.

2. Please clarify, is “low technology” only, and exclusively consists of condoms? Where does the expenses for care, support, and treatment go, in low technology or high technology? Have you done necessary data adjustment by subtracting the expenses under these heads from low/high technology? If yes, then it must be specified. This classification, low/high technology, as it stands now is vague. You must make the classification clear by explicitly stating what each of these includes, and how you did the data adjustment to calculate the expenses only for your intended purpose.

3. In the Discussion part, first paragraph, tables are incomplete. Give a table that shows how much funding developing countries get by region (such as Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, etc.), otherwise drawing this conclusion that “more funding goes to research into new high level technologies….in developing countries” is meaningless. You must show how much before you can draw this conclusion.

4. Discussion 3rd paragraph. Why should the EU donors submissively follow USA? Any reason? You do not cite any but only assume. Does this assumption have any basis? What? State that. If you don’t have any evidence, don’t write it.

5. Discussion 4th para. What is affecting the decision making process of the EU donors is virtually not clear from this paper. What factors are affecting their decision? Do you state any single factor? You just assume influence from USA. What influence? How did that influence happen?

6. Conclusion, first sentence. This was not the stated purpose/ objective of the paper. You do not investigate this! If this is the objective, then a whole lot of other adjustments in the paper including methods and writing must to be done. Please remove this sentence.

Minor Essential Revisions

1. The results and discussion parts seem to be too short and can be elaborated. What type of article is this? Is this a research article? Then please elaborate up to 7,000 words. If this is a short report, then I think the length is OK, but you must clarify certain points as mentioned below.

2. Avoid using “it seems” throughout the paper. It gives an impression that the conclusions are not well supported by data and evidence, but only based on the surface impression of the authors. What if it does not seem to me what it seem to you?

3. In Results, Figure 2, the title is not clear. “The share of funding for delivery of low level HIV prevention in total funding”. (Is this total funding for HIV? For health? For total government expenditure? What? What is the denominator? Please be explicit.

4. Discussion 2nd paragraph. The first sentence, “A possible reason for these changes…… UNGASS in 2001” is a long drawn conclusion. Do you have comparable evidence from the three other indicators (that you don’t mention out of four) that such a shift has taken place? What about the other three sectors? Do they also show comparable change?

5. Influence of Bill and Melinda Gates is possibly overstated. I know BMGF in India that support only low level technologies, including care, support and treatment programs. I have not read McCoy, but I would urge the authors to go to the original source and BMGF website and check if their funding priority is skewed towards high level technology.

6. You must clarify, if investing in high level technology is a zero-sum game. Why investing in this sector is problematic? You must state in your paper, what is the problem posed by overinvestment in high level technologies.

7. Also in 3rd paragraph. The recipients of funding for research into vaccines and microbicides are the private pharma companies or research institutes also located in the developing countries. A lot of funding for vaccine and microbicides goes in many developing countries, not only in developed countries as you state.

8. Discussion 4th para. Do you confirm “technification and medicalization of AIDS”? This is not the stated purpose of this paper, at least so far, I did not know this. Then all of a sudden towards the end you introduce a new idea saying this technification and medicalizaton of AIDS…. As far as I know, you are not investigating this. Your objectives are different. If you want to investigate this, the whole paper will change. So remove this.

9. Discussion last para. Why more money is not invested in condoms? Can you offer some reasons? Just state a few?