I assume their point is that, ah, the opinion of someone who thinks AIDS is _caused by poppers_ on anything medical, or, indeed, probably on _anything_, may be safely discounted, on the basis that they are clearly insane.

I understand that. I'm wondering why you'd find such a shitty source even the slightest bit compelling.

I didnt find it compelling at all - I was being sarcastic. Anyone who thinks Brett Weinstein is reputable at this point is an idiot.