Talk:Andre Chad Parenzee

Appeal to Supreme Court documents
The complete judges ruling is available on-line in at least 2 places:

http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2007/0427-SASC-143.htm http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/PDFs/2007-SASC-143-Parenzee.pdf

and

http://garlan.rethinkingaids.info/Cases/Parenzee/

user:Nocontroversytalk 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we've had a link to the complete ruling since the article was created - the one to the original court document, and not the one to the document as transcribed by AIDS "rethinkers". - Nunh-huh 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the rethinkingaids website is best avoided as a source, except perhaps as a source for what AIDS denialists believe. Otherwise, it generally fails Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. By the way, its webmaster, David Crowe, is occasionally active here (see User:DavidRCrowe). MastCell Talk 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki enlistment of editors
Note that an AIDS denialist newsgroup posting is soliciting denialists to "enhance and expand" this article. MastCell Talk 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By excluding experts for the defense how did the judge let information into the trial - clarification of the article needed. Were there other experts for the defense that were allowed to testufy, etc.159.105.80.141 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC) I hadn't read the entire article - and not even the link about recruiting deniers ( neat word ie deniers ). The article doesn't need rebuttal but links to outside sources would be helpful. One question - were any other defense experts considered ( Duesberg might have been interested himself - there are plenty of experts who could have matched any of the prosecution experts in academic criteria etc? ( The article is very one-sided, as the link from the blog mentioned).159.105.80.141 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Duesberg acknowledges that HIV exists, and so he would have been an uncomfortable fit with the defense strategy of claiming it doesn't. The defense did not offer any potential expert witnesses other than the two who were ultimately found not to be experts. The article is simply reporting the judge's findings. If they're one-sided, you might want to consider the possibility that that's because one side is right.  - Nunh-huh 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless I have totally misread Duesberg, who discovered retroviruses, there is a virus but it doesn't have anything to do with AIDS. The virus called HIV is misnamed according to the person who discovered it ( and thought it might be the cause of cancer - it turns out, in his opinion, that it is the cause of nothing ( he thinks it might give you a short term cold-like illness I believe ). His research points to 1, no AIDS link with HIV and 2.) AIDS appears to be a group of diseases that are common to certain situations ... stravation, poor canitation, drug use, etc. ( ie AIDS is a fake that brings in a lot of cash to a bunch of scrondrels who all do or should know better - Duesberg's opinion ).159.105.80.141 16:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Perth Group claims HIV doesn't exist, Duesberg claims it does, but is harmless. Their views are incompatible, and can't really both be argued in a single trial. - Nunh-huh 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, at this point I'm going to say a) Duesberg didn't discover HIV, and b) please read the talk page guidelines - this and other AIDS-related talk pages are not forums for general discussion about Duesberg, AIDS, etc. They are intended for specific suggestions on improving this article. If you want to propound AIDS denialism, Holocaust denialism, or other wholesome interests this IP seems to be associated with, please utilize other venues besides Wikipedia talk pages. MastCell Talk 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course Duesberg didn't discover HIV. He dropped the whole retrovirus research due to the fact that retroviruses are harmless, a benign curiosity but not disease causing agents. Duesberg et al would have been proper expert witnesses - I can't figure out what the two witnesses they tried to use were going to testify on - cloves of garlic?159.105.80.141 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Andre Chad Parenzee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071225192916/http://independentweekly.com.au:80/?article_id=10223958 to http://independentweekly.com.au/?article_id=10223958&PHPSESSID=49a793fa898a739311aa7670845ac70b
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070430062920/http://www.courts.sa.gov.au:80/judgments/Judgments2007/0427-SASC-143.htm to http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2007/0427-SASC-143.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Andre Chad Parenzee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501113107/http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2007/0427-SASC-143.htm to http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2007/0427-SASC-143.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)