The favorite tactic of Big Pharma shills like the folks over at AIDStruth. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) Explanation It is important to note that the label вЂњad hominemвЂќ is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer donвЂ™t accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem. The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. Example (1) Henry Bauer analyzes epidemiological data and points to the fact that "HIV" doesn't chart like a sexually transmitted disease. (2) Bauer also wrote a about research into the Loch Ness Monster. Therefore: (3) Anything he says about epidemiological data must be false. This argument rejects the view that "HIV's" sexual transmissibility has been proven false based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem.