AIDSVIDEOS

I was recently pointed in the direction of a new initiative exploiting the growing popularity of places like YouTube and other online video sites.

Basically, talking heads and videos are a lot more striking than simple websites. The dissidents have (as usual) got there first with a couple of films posted online and/or in rare public viewings. This group of people have got together to create a series of counter-videos to either explain the science and medicine behind HIV and AIDS, or to counter specific dissident points.

Intentionally, their videos are titled to draw in dissidents, and apparently it works rather well :o)

This kind of work is long-overdue and should be applauded. As with this site and AIDSTruth, the work is pretty much done as a hobby, but what I've seen so far looks pretty good. Certainly a better job than I could have done!

The story continues...

Apparently Andre Parenzee is appealing yet again with the Perth Group at his side.

In a statement, Eleni says "Even the expert on sexual transmission did not come up with one single study which proves that HIV is sexually transmitted. "

By that I'm assuming she's referring to Padian, whom the dissidents see as the be-all and end-all of HIV sexual transmission. And yet Padian gave multiple examples of papers showing heterosexual transmission of HIV in the rebuttal she has on the AIDStruth.org website, which Eleni (eventually) admitted in court she was aware of prior to testifying...

Who exactly needs to provide proof here, hmm? The Perth Group were clearly just trying to use poor Andre Parenzee to promote their wacky agenda in the public eye. Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos hasn't even attended a college biology course - she taught herself biology and has done no biological research of her own! How can she possibly claim to be able to critically analyze the scientific literature of HIV and AIDS..?

Thankfully the judge had some common sense. Untrained, inexperienced amateurs disagreeing with evidence-based scientific consensus is not the same as "controversy" or "reasonable doubt" in anyone's mind but their own.