He's just done a test with an illegal copy of Prevx -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx7vlH1FJ2A- against 15 possible malware www's he had listed. Some were dead so not all got tested. Prevx detected 8 and he clicked remove, but instead of waiting for it to do it's thing, straightaway he also clicks RUN again on the malware everytime Also he ignores Prevx requests to do a scan after every infection thereby preventing any possible extra detection and cleanup Not only all that, but as in every other test of his i've seen, he keeps on running one malware after another, and then at some point complains his comp is slowing down Furthermore after whatever AV he tests, he then uses other apps like MBAM/SAS etc to try and find what the AV missed. Any malware still found then appears to show these apps in a good light, and the AV in a poor one. Sure they found what they found, and kudos for doing so. But hang on a minute, what if he didn't allow the test AV to delete what it finds, until after he runs MBAM/SAS etc and then see if they detect the stuff the test AV did ? The way he tests is always flawed in favour of the after apps, as well as multiple running of malware, and clicking run whilst also clicking Remove etc. If he did the tests sequentially and independently one malware at a time, in the way i've described, that would be a LOT fairer and better don't you think ?