It appears that Andre Parenzee has given up trying to show HIV doesn't
exist, and now wants to disprove the link between HIV and AIDS
instead.

I think he's just grasping at straws, really.  His arguments that HIV
doesn't exist or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS should have been put
forward at his initial trial.  In all likelihood, faced with such a
defence, the prosecution would probably have quietly shelved the case
or at the very least offered an extremely good deal if he pleaded
guilty.

If he had gone for the HIV doesn't exist defence at his trial the
burden of proof would have been on the prosecution to prove that it
does, and I can't really see them very willing to want to go before a
jury about that.

Unfortunately, now, Andre is a guilty man and the onus is on him to
prove the procession's case was flawed.

<http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22082933-5005961,00.html>:
"AN HIV-positive man convicted for having unprotected sex with three
Adelaide women has launched a second appeal for his freedom.
A South Australian Supreme Court jury last January found Andre Chad
Parenzee, 36, guilty of three counts of endangering life after one of
the women, a mother of two, became infected with HIV.

A judge threw out an appeal in April, rejecting claims by defence
witnesses - Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Valendar Turner - that
the virus did not exist and could not be sexually transmitted.

Parenzee's lawyer Kevin Borick QC today argued before the full bench
of the SA Court of Appeal that the case should be reopened because the
judge had failed to take into account the different streams of
scientific thought about the cause of AIDS.

Mr Borick said there had been 'controversy right from the start' about
whether HIV existed and was linked with AIDS.

'HIV is a virus, it is not AIDS,' Mr Borick told the court.

'In the minds of the public the terms are interchangeable - they are
not.'"