Ballet dancers, colourful artistic costumes, the pop star Annie Lennox—there's even a place where celebs can have their hair coiffed under the banner "Hairstylists against AIDS."

No, this isn't the latest summer arts festival with a conscience, as might be conceived by the London Assembly, but the two yearly August AIDS junket known this year simply as "Mexico." No more explanation needed. And before you say that this is just sour grapes—I'm stuck looking at the photos on screen in BMJ Towers, while I could be enjoying the festivities and hobnobbing with the two Bills—it's not.

I'm just unsure whether it's what the global community needs to tackle HIV and AIDS.

The conference has clearly come at a great cost—and not just to the climate, with 22 000 delegates winging their way across the world to attend. We criticise the drug industry for selling essential drugs at inflated prices while handing out freebies and holding meetings in luxury hotels.

Only last month a 43 year old man, Polo Gomez, staged a protest in Mexico City against the rising prices of antiretrovirals by wearing a crown of needles containing his own HIV infected blood.

But isn't it time that the United Nations and non-governmental organisations turned the spotlight on themselves?

What message is Mexico sending to those working every day at the grassroots level? Or those trying to alleviate the burden of AIDS by tackling poverty?

Look at the PR photos on the official site (www.aids2008.org/). All these important people coming together under the goodwill banner of AIDS hiding the fragmented, self interested parties involved.

No mention of the thousands of organisations and experts with different agendas competing for money, kudos, and air space.

Photographic protests outside highlight the divisions. There's the Mexican pro- life committee burning government pro-condom information; cross dressers marching against homophobia; and human rights activists campaigning against US detention centres for Mexican immigrants, to name but a few.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong—I'm not there. I'm only a bemused editor watching the charade play out on the computer screen in front of me.

Photographic PR shots; tepid press statements; and joint statements from previously antagonistic organisations—that's not to mention the obligatory calls for more money.

What's changed since last time? I'm bored with it already.