Crowe and the letter to Science

8/9 December 2009

 

President Crowe writes:

My perspective is that:

1. The Gallo quartet of papers should be removed from the scientific record as fraudulent and fundamentally unreliable. This should result in a rethinking of the entire AIDS theory obviously.

What is the value of this unbelievably stupid statement?

Like everyone in the world should have enough to eat?

And that this should result in everyone being happy obviously.

What a complete moron.

The Perth Group make the point that the ‘entire AIDS theory’ has to be attacked at its Achilles’ heel: the missing virus claimed to be at the core of it.

The one and only strike the orthodoxy is unable to resist.

But Crowe, who believes he’s cleverer than the combined intelligence of the Perth Group, since he’s in the cell-phone business, passes over Montagnier’s HIV isolation paper on which the ‘entire AIDS theory’ is erected.

No, he prefers to slap Gallo around on his papers instead, since to Crowe this is the way to go.

This is going to get us to where we want to be.

Like in the Parenzee case, which he ran into the sand by prevailing on Borick to try catching Gallo out as a crook who stole Montagnier’s virus.

As if Crowe was going to succeed, using Borick as his fool in this errand, where all previous bids had failed.

Like in the Letter to Science making claims about Gallo being a fraudster on spurious grounds.

This is the master strategist running RA.

 

2. The strategy and content of the letter are secondary. They could have been improved, but what can't? Fundamentally I think the general thrust of the letter was correct.

In two separate analyses by Claus Jensen and Jim West the ‘general thrust of the letter’ has been shown wholly and ‘fundamentally’ incorrect.

Obviously, in planning an offensive manoeuvre, only an incredibly stupid person would describe the choice of strategy as a ‘secondary’ consideration.

But then again, Crowe’s strategic genius was on display in the Parenzee case: persuading Borick to change the fundamental basis of the appeal from HIV has never been shown to exist by purification to, no, sorry judge, that’s completely wrong, our witnesses didn’t know what they were talking about, actually HIV undoubtedly exists: you’ll hear from de Harven that it’s definitely an endogenous retrovirus, with Duesberg then contradicting him and saying no it’s definitely an exogenous virus but immediately neutralized by antibodies into becoming a harmless passenger virus. But please, judge, don’t go overly fussing yourself trying to decide which of the two. All you need to know is that the Perth group are wrong and that Duesberg and De Harven are the finest scientific minds in the AIDS dissident movement, they really are. They’ve got status. We’re very proud of them. Did you say you read on the internet that their claims about HIV have been finely examined by the Perth Group and found to be an embarrassingly stupid pile of garbage? You weren’t supposed to think, judge. You weren’t supposed to get interested and go looking online. I didn’t bargain on that, even though I’m clever. I’m clever with cell-phones.

 

3. Calling for their removal was a historic moment, although the execution was botched with nobody following up with the journal to persist in getting at least a response.

Having been completely wrong and completely ignored the letter was hardly ‘historic’.

As if a shot at a politician’s head, missing and flying past him completely unnoticed by anyone is ‘historic’.

How utterly pathetic.

A dissident colleague asks:

Why is he lying about nobody following up?

Maniotis said several follow-up letters were written.

Oh, I get it, Maniotis is a nobody as far as RA is concerned.

To imagine that the man publicly states in front of 39 Signatories:

Dear Signatories:

Thank you so much for participating in our little RA-RA Land fantasy game – the Letter to Science – where content and strategy don't matter as long as you write with a magic marker and seal with a kiss.

Reality is boring. Who can bothered with content, what we put our name on, really? Certainly not me, I sign with my thumb. That's also why you didn't get all the info we claim you got.  Funny, now I think about it, why did it take us weeks to formulate the Letter, when I could just have handed the keyboard to my chimp – oops – maybe I did?

Anyhow, you were all part of a historic moment, nobody can change that. Not even reality. Unfortunately I kind of forgot about it at the time, so many historic moments to keep track of you know, so no follow-up boys. Hey, nobody's perfect, but I do want to tell you, you're all real troopers as far as I am concerned.

Tada

The actual ‘historic moment’ in our movement was the Parenzee case.

As everybody but the RA board knows, Crowe ‘botched’ it (they've come out on their RA website saying he did a magnificent job botching the case).

Next to Crowe, not even John Moore, Nathan Geffen, Jeanne Bergmann or Seth Kalichman have come close to being as effective in harming us.

 

4. In a perfect world accusations of scientific fraud would be taken seriously and the journal would immediately start a preliminary investigation to determine if a full investigation considering their withdrawal was warranted.

What an incredibly stupid statement, again.

As if Crowe’s fantasy perspective of the matter is of any interest to anyone but born losers like him.

He was pertinently warned by Turner that the letter was rubbish and would likely backfire on the AIDS dissident movement.

But being the clever boy he went with it anyway.

Living in his childish disconnected fantasy land.

Indifferent to what  the hard results would be.

Going off down a ridiculous obvious dead-end hand-in-hand with Janine Roberts, and taking his signatories and all of RA with him.

Making a fool of himself and everyone.

 

5. In such a world, the content of the letter is almost irrelevant because the journal should verify every point and solicit other viewpoints. All the letter would be is a trigger (in this world we clearly don't live in).

What kind of pathetic moron would claim ‘content of the letter is almost irrelevant’?

What kind of a moron would appreciate that in the real world, and not the ideal world of his pathetic imagination, the letter would not be ‘a trigger’, and yet proceed to send it off anyway, a trigger that was never going to be pulled, with the result that Gallo was never going to go down?

Presumably Crowe didn’t convey to his signatories that the ‘content of the letter is almost irrelevant’ when he was asking them to put their names to it.

Presumably they trusted accordingly that the ‘content of the letter’ was solid and founded on hard fact, and that it set up an unimpeachable case.

Had Science reacted by deciding to ‘verify every point’ it would have found that the ‘content of the letter’ was complete rubbish as Jensen and West demonstrate.

Or maybe it did, and after establishing that the letter was complete rubbish for all the reasons Jensen and West have pointed out, perhaps after troubling to ‘solicit other viewpoints’, the editor just threw it into the trash can where it was always headed.

As the Perth Group predicted from the start.

 

I really think this discussion is unproductive. I wouldn't have written even this email except I wanted to put my viewpoints on the record. Beyond this, I think I will remain silent.

The letter to Science was a shambles.

It was Crowe’s stupid project along with his breathless, clueless newbie Janine Roberts.

Obviously to his stupid mind, having his monumental stupidity pointed out to him is ‘unproductive’ and ‘destructive’.

Just as the orthodoxy likes to claim that examining the merits of the HIV theory of AIDS is ‘damaging and confusing’.

The RA group must be brimming with pride to have a person of this scintillating intellectual calibre representing them.

Putting his unbelievably stupid thoughts ‘on the record’ (so they can be immortalized on the website below for all the world to see).

 

I apologize to all the people on this list who also don't want to be party to this destructive discussion.

As if those who’ve taken the trouble to carefully critique the Crowe/Roberts letter to Science project and show what garbage it was are off-side, and need Crowe to apologize to anyone on their behalf.

For showing how incredibly thick and inept he is. The stupid way he writes, let alone the stupid things he does.

 

Anthony Brink

See generally: The Unbelievable Mediocrity of David Crowe: Why Rethinking AIDS has the president it deserves