The further gushing lies of David Crowe and his slimy defamation of Anthony Brink
Exposing which, Etienne de Harven's false charge that the Perth Group are scientific plagiarists gets a close look
An RA supporter in Germany, Stefan Risch, sought Crowe’s response to The gushing lies of David Crowe, and Crowe obliged with his comments. In the course of a discussion of current AIDS dissident politics with a Perth Group supporting dissident, Sabine Kalitzkus in Munich, Risch passed Crowe's mail to her with his permission. Kalitzkus then enquired of Crowe whether it wouldn't be fair to put it to me for my comment, and asked his consent to do so. Crowe didn't refuse, but he wasn't keen on it either: '... there is no point in you forwarding that message. He will just use the material to attack me again.'
To read Crowe's mail is to understand his reluctance that I see it, comment on it, and make it public; and why he feared 'the material' would expose him to further attack.
For clarity, my original mail appears below in black italics; my original quotation of Crowe appears in italicized blue; his responses are in blue boldface; and my comments on them are set in plain text.
Nobody spoke on [the Perth Group's] behalf at RA 2009 and I am generally opposed to having speakers speak "on behalf" of someone else.
Both of these statements are demonstrable lies.
Crowe knows perfectly well that the Perth Group are the originators of the seminal missing virus critique of the HIV theory of AIDS.
Not an issue. I've never questioned this.
Crowe records here that he accepts this latter statement as an incontrovertible fact: it's 'not an issue', he says – but only for the moment....
Even though he knows this perfectly well, he rejected the Perth Group's request in mid-2006 that he post a summary and history of their work on the RA website to confirm it on the record.
Usually their pieces are a direct attack on RA as well as other matters, and when I ask them to remove the ad hominem, they refuse to allow me to publish anything.
Both of these statements are blatant lies, evident to anyone familiar with the content of the Perth Group's postings and publications.
'Usually' means 'most of the time' or 'nearly always'. In truth, there is no evidence that the Perth Group's 'pieces' have ever been 'a direct attack on RA' by way of 'ad hominem' insults. But so incompetent, so defensive and so stupid, Crowe reflexively portrays the Perth Group's questioning of Rethinking AIDS science as attacking the individuals on his RA board.
For example, when I asked them to help defend Celia Farber they responded with this piece: http://www.rethinkingaids.com/GalloRebuttal/OtherOpinions/PerthGroup.pdf which I obviously allowed to be posted. I've attached their 2006 piece. I made some suggestions for minor edits, they refused to change a word, and I said I wouldn't post it. If I recollect, I wanted the first paragraph omitted as unnecessary. And I disagreed that they owned their ideas in perpetuity (see the last paragraph). I do not believe that the Perth Group needs to be credited when any of the issues in that paper are mentioned except in the context of an academic paper or when someone is trying to write an accurate history of AIDS dissent. It was an absurd request that "anyone who either discusses or writes anything about the above stated topics must clearly state that we were the first to put forward these ideas".
Having 'disagreed that the Perth Group owned their scientific discoveries in perpetuity', do you think Crowe would like his logic applied to his house, his car and his pension? His today, mine tomorrow. Do you see how Crowe spouts the most blatant rubbish without a second thought? Like a businessman selling a junk car.
In the mail he was responding to, I'd already mentioned the reason for the Perth Group's 'absurd request'; see also immediately below, and more after that.
The Perth Group have no recollection of Crowe having ever asked them to cut their first paragraph, and Crowe says he isn't sure he did anyway. Whatever the case, this would hardly have been a 'minor edit'.
The Perth Group made this request of him in view of de Harven's plagiarism of their science and his repeated public presentation of a corrupted, uncredited version of it.
They have no evidence de Harven plagiarized. At other times they have denounced Etienne's HERV theory. It can't be both ways.
In other words the Perth Group go about making false claims. They are either wrong in protesting de Harven's plagiarism of their work, or they are wrong in debunking his 'HERV' theory, and they can't be right on both scores. In fact there is plain evidence that de Harven plagiarized the Perth Group's science, and they have indeed debunked his 'HERV' theory.
When pointing out in his public presentations and writing that 'HIV' has never been isolated, de Harven has never credited the Perth Group for this original scientific observation of theirs ('The Pitiful Plagiarism of Etienne de Harven', forthcoming, will detail this. See also Claus Jensen on de Harven's (non-)alternative theory of 'HIV').
It is not the Perth Group's approach to denounce people or theories, and only a dishonest moron would mischaracterize their writing in this manner. They have examined and debunked de Harven's 'HERV' theory; and since he's studied biology Crowe well appreciates that de Harven's 'HERV' theory is nonsense. Nonetheless, like a baboon on the roadside, Crowe grins stupidly during de Harven's reiteration of his 'HERV' theory at the November 2009 RA conference, and obviously doesn't ask him in question time: 'How can you go on talking this way, Professor? You know as well as I do that the Perth Group have shown your 'HERV' theory to be rubbish. Why do you persist with it? What's the matter with you? Are you completely over the hill?'
In the history of their work that the Perth Group wanted Crowe to post on the RA website, but which he refused to do, they explained precisely their reason for wanting to be cited by anyone propounding their missing virus science or any version of it.
As the Perth Group pointed out to Crowe, it was not only a matter of asking for priority credit – although it's hard to see what's wrong with their asking to be credited with priority if it's their idea – it was to prevent further misinterpretation of their work. For instance:
1. the Perth Group have presented evidence that 'HIV' has not been proven to exist, and de Harven says Montagnier did not prove the existence of 'HIV' but proved the existence of a retrovirus in humans;
2. the Perth Group argued since there is no proof for the existence of 'HIV' there can be no proof for the existence of 'HIV' antibodies. Crowe responds that the antibodies are not 100% specific, which means some of the antibodies are 'HIV' antibodies;
3. the Perth Group say there is no proof for the sexual transmission of 'HIV'. Crowe agrees, but instructs Kevin Borick that 'HIV' is sexually transmitted albeit with great difficulty.
The Perth Group's appeal to Crowe to post a notice on his RA site summarizing their work and urging people to read it in the original was their polite way of saying, 'If you only read de Harven's plagiarized version of our work you'll get it all messed up from him, because as he takes and then mangles what we say he doesn't cite us, and so doesn't put you onto the original correct presentation of our science.'
The likely reason Crowe rejected their request to post a summary and history of their work on the RA website, even though he well knew it to be factually impeccable, is that de Harven, then RA president, had already asserted to him privately, as he was later to do publicly, that the Perth Group had 'swiftly appropriated' their historical observation that there is no evidence for the existence of HIV from Stefan Lanka, which is to say the Perth Group had plagiarized Lanka's scientific work and insight.
Etienne did say that. I have no evidence either way. But it had nothing to do with my rejection because their piece was sent to us in 2006 and Etienne made this charge this year (the first I knew about it, anyway).
See how the stranger to the truth shifts his position to ease the pinch of the shoe. He dissembles that (1) there is an issue as to who originated the missing virus problem, (2) he doesn't actually know who the author of this science is, and (3) he hasn't seen the evidence settling the issue.
All Crowe's statements here are lies.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow that he is so lazy, so stupid and so ignorant that he hadn't read or wasn't able to understand the Perth Group's papers in which they noted, long before Stefan Lanka arrived on the scene, that 'HIV' hasn't been isolated. But as a member of the 'HIVAIDSPARADIGM' discussion forum, Crowe read Claus Jensen's immediate responses to de Harven's plagiarism charge ('Dear Prof de Harven, Have you gone stark raving mad?'), in which he pointed out that in 'Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?' in Bio/technology 11, 696-707 (1993), the Perth Group noted:
It goes without saying that virus isolation can be used as a gold standard only if it provides conclusive genetic, virological and molecular evidence for the existence of a unique virus.'
On 24 August 2009 Crowe reacted with characteristic dishonesty to my complaint about de Harven's false accusation by implying that de Harven may well have been right in charging the Perth Group with scientific plagiarism:
'Regarding Etienne, it is rather ironic that you now want me to step in and discipline him because of what you think is an error (you haven't provided clear evidence that he's wrong).'
Jensen also quoted the following key phrase from the Perth Group's 1988 paper, 'Reappraisal of Aids: Is the oxidation caused by the risk factors the primary cause?' published in Medical Hypotheses (25:151-162) in 1988: ‘even assuming that HTLV-III/LAV exists in vivo’.
This was all the evidence Crowe needed to see that de Harven's plagiarism charge against the Perth Group was false, and only a stupidly dishonest person would pretend it wasn't plain from these statements that the Perth Group (a) appreciated from the beginning that 'HIV' had never been shown to exist, and (b) had made clear that their arguments were never based on more than the hypothetical existence of the alleged virus.
Recently, on 24 November 2009, the Perth Group emailed many leading dissident activists on the oxidative nature of semen in ano, which Crowe insistently disputes (quite why, one really baulks at speculating). In their mail they made the point: 'The evidence presented in this paper shows neither Montagnier nor Gallo nor anyone else had published proof for the isolation/purification of a retrovirus. That is, proof for the existence of "HIV".'
'This paper' was their seminal (in both senses) Medical Hypotheses paper just mentioned – many years before Stefan Lanka was taught his 'HIV' biology by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos (over so many lengthy telephone calls to her that their combined cost, she said, must have been enough to 'bankrupt Deutsche Bank'). Lanka himself has never claimed, as de Harven has, that Papadopulos-Eleopulos stole her science from him. And to his great credit, unlike many other AIDS dissidents, he understood the missing virus problem that the Perth Group had identified, even if he made some mistakes in the retelling.
Nor is it true that 'this year' (2009) was 'the first [Crowe] knew about' de Harven's claim that the Perth Group took Lanka's science: it's in de Harven's 2008 book, Ten Lies about AIDS which Crowe would certainly have read. Page 130 credits the Perth Group only with allegedly 'confirm[ing]' an earlier report by other researchers that the Western Blot test is non-specific – and nothing else. Crowe and de Harven are natural friends!
In fact, as mentioned, Crowe knew then as he knows now that de Harven's foul allegation that the Perth Group plagiarized Stefan Lanka's scientific work and insight was completely false.
I have no information either way.
Even if he hasn't read the Perth Group's early papers, he had the information that Jensen, and again recently the Perth Group, set before him.
Crowe's statement that he has no information is a lie, and it's a characteristic weasely lie of his, easily shown to be a lie, because although he's a habitual liar, he's not a very good liar. He even tells lies where there's clear evidence showing his lies up to be the lies they are.
But Crowe didn't care that it was false. He didn't care that a member of his board should publicly say such a revolting, gravely serious thing. The reason he didn't care, evidently, is because Crowe is untroubled by the uttering of revolting, gravely serious lies. Much more important to him than the truth, and setting straight the scientific historical record that de Harven had fouled, was keeping de Harven onside as a political ally with an eye on his own petty ambitions.
Etienne did have some evidence and it hasn't been countered by the Perth Group. I'll let other people fight over this aspect of history. The Perth Group did admit that they hadn't put the issue of non-existence in writing for a long time because they wanted to be taken seriously. If so, it is possible that Stefan Lanka was the first to say it, at which point ethics of science makes it his idea. This is why I think scientific priority disputes are really, really stupid, and I won't get involved. It's especially stupid when the majority of the world think we are all mad. They think we're arguing over whether the flat earth is round or square.
Let's take this down line by line:
Etienne did have some evidence and it hasn't been countered by the Perth Group.
It has now come to the point where the RA president cannot even stick to his own story from one paragraph to the next. First he said he'd never questioned that the Perth Group originated the missing virus critique. Then he said, 'I have no information either way.' Now it's 'Etienne did have some evidence.'
Crowe is of course lying again, as usual. The truth of it is that de Harven has presented no evidence whatsoever for his appalling allegation. He has claimed that he couldn't find evidence of the missing virus theory or any statements to that effect in the Perth Group's early papers.
When Jensen presented him with the evidence, and explained to him that no isolation equals no proof of existence per definition, de Harven had no answer.
When he pointed out to him that the Perth Group had not in fact appropriated Lanka's line that 'HIV doesn't exist' (actually they've never said this) because the scientifically correct formulation is 'HIV has not been isolated' or 'HIV has not been proven to exist', de Harven had no answer.
To this day Crowe dishonestly maintains that he has been presented with no proof that the Perth Group originated the missing virus argument. The truth is that Crowe, like de Harven, has never responded to the proof he has been presented with.
Would Crowe and de Harven take Edward King and Robin Weiss's word for it that it was not Stefan Lanka who originated the 'HIV doesn't exist' line?
'In late 1995 an advertisement appeared in the Pink Paper offering a £1000 reward to "the first person finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV". The advert was placed by the group Continuum, who do not accept that HIV is the cause of AIDS. In effect, they were arguing that not only does HIV not cause AIDS, but it does not exist at all.'
This is the introduction to King and Weiss's claim to the Continuum award, which was based on the Perth Group's presentation of the Pasteur guidelines for virus isolation. Earlier in the year, before the journal Continuum invited claims to its award, Lanka himself had written in 'HIV; Reality or Artefact?' in the April/May issue that anyone reading the Perth Group's 'Western Blot' paper in Bio/technology in June 1993 would realize that the existence of 'HIV' has not been proven. In this paper the Perth Group had stated: 'The problems associated with the specificity of the WB could be avoided by use of the only suitable gold standard, HIV isolation. To date this has not been done and based on the problems associated with HIV isolation, it may never be feasible.'
Lanka wrote accordingly:
'In 1993 a research group from Perth, Australia succeeded in publishing a paper on the HIV test.(4) Since then anybody could have read for him or herself that no AIDS test could ever work, because HIV has never been isolated nor even shown to exist. Since AIDS research and the media have largely ignored any critique of HIV=AIDS, especially the essential question of whether HIV really does exist, it is time to call again for a reappraisal of the whole HIV/AIDS hypothesis. In going back to the origins of HIV virology and telling the HIV story, a view will be presented which will make clear that HIV itself, the very object of this Manhattan Project of modern medicine, AIDS research, does not exist.(5)'
The Perth also made their point that 'HIV' has never been isolated in their 1993 paper 'Has Gallo Proven the Role of HIV in AIDS?' Emergency Medicine [Australia] 1993;5: 113-123:
'Even if a retrovirus is isolated from in vitro cultures/co‑cultures from tissues from AIDS patients, this does not, by itself, constitute proof of the existence of the virus in vivo, (in AIDS patients), and even less that the retrovirus has been exogenously acquired [...] The evidence for the existence of HTLV‑III was "viral isolation" and ELISA antibody tests. Even if one assumes that the data presented represents "true isolation", the virus was isolated from less that half (10/21) of AIDS patients with opportunistic infections, and in less than one third (13/43) with Kaposi's sarcoma, then and now the two most characteristic AIDS diseases. Even if the virus could have been isolated from all patients, given the nature of retroviruses and the method used for HTLV‑III isolation (cultures, mitogenic stimulation, co‑cultivation) the possibility cannot be excluded that the virus did not exist in vivo (in AIDS patients), and that it was a provirus whose expression was facilitated by the culture conditions. The only method used to prove HIV infection in vivo was the antibody tests. Such a test can only be used only after its specificity has been proven by use of the only possible gold standard, the virus itself. This has not been done.'
King and Weiss understood full well that to question isolation is to question proof of existence, and they accordingly made the stakes clear in the introduction to their claim.
Since the foregoing evidence excludes Lanka as the originator of the 'HIV doesn't exist' line, Crowe and de Harven are left with three choices. It originated with:
A. 'The Continuum group '
B. The Perth Group
C. Edward King and Robin Weiss
So which is it?
All Crowe has to do is read the Perth Group's very first 'Reappraisal of AIDS' paper in 1988 where he will see it expressly stated that 'HIV' has never been isolated and thereby shown to exist:
'It must be emphasised that unlike other viruses HTLV-III/LAV has never been isolated as an independent stable particle. By isolation of the virus, in fact, is meant transient detection in the cell culture of: viral antigens, viral antibodies, the enzyme reverse transcriptase (RT) and of virus like particles budding from the cellular membrane into the extracellular space. In the vast majority of cases isolation is synonymous with RT detection. However apart from RT these cultures have almost any other enzyme implicated in DNA synthesis and "it has not been excluded that viral reverse transcriptases are cellular enzymes . . . ." (76). The viral specificity of RT is believed to be given by the template primer it uses (76). For HTLV-III/LAV isolation the French and the Americans use either (dT)12-18*(A)n or (dT)15* (A)n as template primer (75,17). But, in earlier papers Gallo and his collaborators present evidence that "DNA polymerase y, a component of normal cells...." prefers exactly the same template as the one used for HTLV-II/LAV isolation (78,79). It is also significant that the kind of template a polymerase uses and its activity depends on the culture conditions and probably on the state of cellular development i.e. the activity of the enzyme depends on the normality or subnormality of the cells (79,80). In rare cases by isolation is meant finding of virus-like particles either T-cells in vitro or cells other than T in fresh AIDS tissue (81,82). These particles are not only hard to detect but at least in some cases may be normal organelles not HTLV-III/LAV viruses (83). Furthermore, particle aggregation and budding have been proposed to be determined by actin-myosin interaction (84,85). It is of interest to note that actin-myosin interaction, particle aggregation and budding can be all induced by oxidizing agents (84,85,86 ). Most importantly in vitro cultures with normal cells, virus-free, ". . . can be induced to produce particles which resemble RNA tumour viruses in every physical and chemical respect" (76).'
De Harven has never retracted and apologized for his false plagiarism accusation against the Perth Group, and as president of his Rethinking AIDS Group Crowe has refused my appeal that he intervene to press de Harven to clear up his mess.
I'll let other people fight over this aspect of history. The Perth Group did admit that they hadn't put the issue of non-existence in writing for a long time because they wanted to be taken seriously.
The Perth Group have 'admit[ted]' no such thing. They've stated that changes had to be made and formulations carefully chosen to get their papers past peer-reviewers and editors while still putting the issue of proof of existence in writing, as their papers, quoted above, clearly show. They consistently did so, and right from the start.
What Crowe falsely claims as their 'admi[ssion]' is a passage in their recent statement on 18 September 2009 announcing their dissociation from RA:
'The conclusion in the original draft [to the 1988 paper] started with the sentence: “The presently available data does not prove the existence of a unique retrovirus LAV/HTLV-III”. John Papadimitriou advised against it, and Eleni totally agreed with him. In fact John rewrote the whole conclusion. The main reasons were:
(1) Many people read only the abstract and the conclusion.
(2) Since at that time (beginning of 1986) the world and especially Nature was hailing Montagnier and Gallo, the paper would have had zero chance of being published.
(3) In John’s view, the evidence should speak for itself. Indeed, this has been our guiding light since then.'
In his false statement, Crowe smuggles in the dishonest implication that the Perth Group's no-isolation/no-proof-of-existence argument can't be 'taken seriously' by anybody with any brains. Indeed, this is the root of the strategic discord between Crowe and the handful of largely uninvolved individuals lending their names to the Rethinking AIDS board in one faction, and the Perth Group and all the AIDS dissident movement's scientifically literate activists in the other.
Crowe's statement is not only false, it's another manifestation of his persistent delusion that notwithstanding the lesson of the Parenzee disaster, he's a political and strategic genius.
If so, it is possible that Stefan Lanka was the first to say it, at which point ethics of science makes it his idea.
If this stupendously cretinous statement by Crowe were true, almost all scientific ideas would belong to science fiction writers and daydreamers. In science, it is not enough to 'say it'. One has to 'say it' in the context of a recognized, coherent theory and argument. Lanka himself has acknowledged the Perth Group's achievement in doing so.
This is why I think scientific priority disputes are really, really stupid, and I won't get involved.
Crowe has undoubtedly managed to make the issue of scientific priority appear 'really, really stupid'; and this is why he should take the consequences of his prodigious stupidity and stay away from scientific issues altogether.
It's especially stupid when the majority of the world think we are all mad. They think we're arguing over whether the flat earth is round or square.
This is a classic Crowe non-sequitur, borrowing as always from the AIDSTruth crowd. The obligation to give due credit has nothing to do with what the world thinks and neither has a scientific dispute. It's another exhibition of his conviction in his own superior strategic genius.
After rejecting Papadopulos-Eleopulos's request that I present the Perth Group's science at the conference, as I'd done in Russia the previous year, Crowe and Rasnick justified their decision on the basis that they wanted the leading expert in each field and not a proxy (not even one nominated by and enjoying the full confidence of the absent speaker).
Given Brink's invective that I've been subject too I'm very glad I didn't invite him. He's also not really a member of the Perth Group (from a scientific or intellectual perspective) and I wanted one of them present. We asked Eleni to attend.
These are all red herrings of the dishonest sort Crowe typically casts about. Nothing in what he says addresses my stated point. The Perth Group has credited me with honorary co-authorships of an important published letter and their monumental monograph on AZT and nevirapine as perinatal HIV prophylactics, as well as their PowerPoint presentation on nevirapine. They commissioned me to present their 'HIV' science at an international AIDS dissident conference in Russia in 2008 and wished me to do the same at the RA conference in 2009. It's patently obvious that I share the Perth Group's 'scientific' and 'intellectual perspective'. Crowe's suggestion that I don't is a typical brazen lie of his made in the teeth of the glaring disconfirming evidence.
But in truth, as is evident from the following, Crowe wasn't actually 'opposed to having speakers speak "on behalf" of someone else' at the conference. After rejecting the Perth Group's authorized nominee to present their science at the conference, Crowe asked de Harven to drop his scheduled talk on so-called murine and human retroviruses and instead to present the very core of the Perth Group's critique of the HIV theory of AIDS – the fact that 'HIV' has never been isolated by Purification – under the title he gave him: 'Questioning the existence of HIV'.
I suggested, not asked, that Etienne consider changing his title, which he did. I made no requests relative to the content, and it was clear that he was speaking on his own behalf.
The very title is right out of Crowe's mouth: he's always 'questioning the existence of HIV'; he's always saying he does so. He asked de Harven to speak to the subject and that's why de Harven did.
The Perth Group does not own the idea that HIV does not exist. It is now public domain. They probably deserve scientific credit for being the first to think of it, but that's all. Why is Brink so incensed about this?
Next Crowe will be saying Einstein doesn't own the special and general theories of relativity. Everyone knows Einstein is the author so it's no longer necessary to say it. In contradistinction, the Perth Group's science is not in the public domain in the same sense as Einstein's science: it's hardly known. So that anyone hearing or reading de Harven would imagine that he was the genius who recognized right from the start, upon a meticulous reappraisal of the scientific evidence, that 'HIV' has never been shown to exist. Whereas de Harven has done no more than misread the Perth Group's work on virusmyth.
Of course the Perth Group owns the idea that HIV has not been proved to exist, and only a stupid liar would try contending otherwise. The Perth Group were the first to argue it and publish the evidence. If they 'probably deserve scientific credit' they 'probably' own it as their original science.
The reason Crowe says 'probably' is because he can't bear to speak the truth he well knows; he can't ever say anything honestly, openly, directly; everything must be fouled with his scheming small-time crooked town-hall politician-speak.
'Brink' is 'so incensed' because he has a visceral loathing for liars.
Crowe was not 'opposed', in fact he was quite happy to have de Harven speak '"on [the Perth Group's] behalf"' on this critical subject, the very core of the Perth Group's critique of the HIV theory of AIDS – not only without their authority, but also aware of their strenuous objections to de Harven doing so, as a plagiarist of their seminal scientific work and insights, and as a risible scientific incompetent to boot.
The quote marks are a lie. Nobody ever said Etienne was speaking on their behalf.
De Harven was to all intents and purposes speaking on their behalf, in that he was presenting their original science, only uncredited to them and in corrupted form.
Crowe had de Harven address the missing virus problem, which is to say present his mangled version of the Perth Group's science, to defuse the uproar among scientifically literate AIDS dissidents over Crowe and Rasnick's (a) failure to accommodate, much less focus on, the missing virus problem in the conference programme, and (b) rejection of the Perth Group's request that I present their science at the conference.
The 'quote marks' are consequently no 'lie' at all. I said de Harven was speaking on their behalf. That’s precisely the complaint: he presented their science against their will, uncredited, misrepresented, and corrupted.
Crowe writes further:
When I filled in for Chris Black at RA 2009 (who could not attend at the last minute) I used my own data, talked on a slightly different subject, from a different perspective, and did not claim to be speaking on Chris Black's behalf.
As mentioned, the reason advanced for rejecting the Perth Group's nomination of me to present their science was that only the leading expert in each field would do. My friend Chris Black has no relevant experience of AIDS law whatsoever, and he's admitted as much to me. Yet Crowe picked him as the world's leading expert on AIDS law.
I picked him to speak at the conference. Obviously people know how unstable Anthony Brink is and nobody's willing to take a risk on his behaviour at the conference. My main reason was to encourage Chris Black to get more involved in AIDS legal cases. I felt that if he boned up on the subject, with his incredible legal background, he could be a very useful asset.
Now that I've exposed it as a sham, Crowe drops his top expert criterion. Now he comes out with what he claims was the true reason for rejecting the Perth Group's request that I present their science at the conference and why I wasn't wanted there at all: I'm actually a nut-case (more to come).
The lie to this, however, is plain from the fact that it was only after Crowe and Rasnick had rejected the Perth Group's request that I present their science that the fireworks started; that's when I began working on ventilating the systemic/personality/political/ethical problems that make Crowe's Rethinking AIDS organization – his tool for his own purposes – a counter-revolutionary agency impeding our movement's progress in attacking the orthodoxy at its weakest point with the best weapon at our disposal: the Perth Group's observation that there is no virus at the core of the whole scheme. That's when my offensives began stinging, and that's when my targets and their dull-witted sympathizers began portraying me as a lunatic, possessed by the devil, and suchlike. It's been very annoying for Crowe to have someone more intelligent and accomplished than he is disagreeing with him, calling him frankly what he is, and taking him to task in a robust and uncompromising manner.
To whom was Chris Black 'going to be a very useful asset'? To Crowe? It couldn't have been to RA, because RA had formally resolved at it's June 2006 meeting to stay out of AIDS litigation. (It's a pity Crowe doesn't know that Chris Black certainly isn't Kevin Borick.)
If he hadn't started this campaign against me relative to the Parenzee trial I probably wouldn't have realized these personality aspects and might have invited Brink. I might have regretted it too.
All this is true.
Had I been at the conference I would have nailed Duesberg and de Harven on their junk science during question time, and it would have been all very upsetting and embarrassing for Crowe and Rasnick and the other members of the board to watch.
After Crowe had spoken, I might well have taxed him publicly on his sabotage of the Parenzee case, and this would have been all very upsetting and embarrassing for him too.
And my talk on the missing virus problem would have left RA's top scientists Duesberg and de Harven looking as ignorant as pigs and as stubborn as mules.
All this would have been 'regretted' very much by Crowe who wants above all to keep his fief together – since he loves being Rotary Club president, being a Rotary business type, a born committee-man – by promoting unchallenged any kind of junk science, even if he knows it's junk, and moreover counter-productive. As long as he can gather lots of people around him and smile at them and shake their hands and feel popular and important and everything. And be a perennial loser, whose RA functions like a perpetual 'cancer research' fund-raising NGO, self-serving, smiling, helping, and certainly not interested in the final resolution of the problem they're ostensibly concerned about.
Having initially pretended that Rasnick was in charge of the speaker invitations, here Crowe reveals the extent to which he practically owns RA. He was doing the inviting after all, having previously lied that this wasn't his business ('I am not the organizer. ... I am solely the catalyst'), gathering yes-men around him (evidently on the principle that A-grade people surround themselves with A-grade people; B-grade people surround themselves with C-grade people). This is why he didn't want the Perth Group or their representative there.
I have been involved in six major litigations involving AIDS law, both civil and criminal, including in the Constitutional Court. I was not approached to talk on any aspect of AIDS law. The reason for this is that Crowe decided that my vocal criticism of his sabotage of the historic Parenzee case evidently disqualified me as an expert on AIDS law. As emerged from his conduct in wrecking the Parenzee case, Crowe evidently decided that he was the second most knowledgeable expert on AIDS law after Chris and this is why he 'filled in' for him on the subject.
No such conclusions can be drawn. Chris Black cancelled a few days before the conference. There was no opportunity to get another speaker on this subject. Brink has fought several cases but I'm not aware that he's won any of them. How do we know from that whether his ideas are brilliant? Especially when he's completely resistant to open discussion of his ideas.
David Steele, a Californian attorney with AIDS law experience was a possible phone call away; Crowe didn't think of trying him. This is because Crowe indeed fancies himself as the cleverest person there is when it comes to running HIV-AIDS litigation. As he knows, but pretends he doesn't, my 'brilliant ideas' about AIDS science in a forensic context aren't my own: they are nearly all Perth's. It's now notorious since the Perth Group's exposé of his conduct in wrecking the Parenzee case that Crowe doesn't think their ideas are 'brilliant' at all; as a cell-phone businessman he thinks his own 'ideas' about how to run an HIV-AIDS case are 'brilliant', which is why he went behind the Perth Group's backs to get his 'brilliant ideas' about how to lose the case accepted by defence counsel.
While we're at it: Peter Duesberg's knowledge of AIDS in South Africa is not a patch on mine, yet he was called upon to talk to the situation in my country.
So now Brink wants to speak 1) On behalf of the Perth Group; 2) As the top legal expert and 3) as a top South African expert. I'm starting to see the picture.
The 'picture' is that Crowe and Rasnick's claimed criterion and justification for rejecting the Perth Group's request that I present their science (no one but the top expert in every field should speak) was a false pretext dishonestly advanced.
Crowe doesn't dispute my claims to top expertise in AIDS law from a dissident perspective, and in the South African situation too, which I have been living, eating, sleeping day in and day out for thirteen years and have been integrally involved in, scientifically and politically, at the highest level.
Similarly, I have been researching ARV drugs, with a focus on AZT and nevirapine, in depth for the past thirteen years and have written extensively about them, including several books.
And every one of his books credits me with assisting him. I've also been researching these drugs for as long, and lots of people are familiar with my annotated bibliographies at:
But is this a pissing contest? Do his books outweigh my living bibliographies? Does it really matter?
Two of my several books credit Crowe for information he provided.
My books obviously outweigh Crowe's 'living bibliographies' by far. The first one put the entire AIDS dissident movement on the international political map in 1999; nothing Crowe has done comes even remotely as close.
The born loser sets up a 'pissing contest' with me, and then admits he's lost it, saying it doesn't 'matter' that he's lost it. What a prick!
But Crowe is good at collecting useful data, no doubt about it. It's just that he's not very hot at discriminating between useful data and total rubbish. This might because he wants to be everyone's friend, perhaps not having enough real ones.
By comparison, David Rasnick hasn't got a clue.
Right, Rasnick was just a protease inhibitor drug designer. What would he know?
Rasnick is an expert in protease inhibitors for sure. But he's indeed clueless concerning AZT (and by implication all other nucleoside analogue drugs). Even after he's been shown wrong, he pig-headedly insists that AZT's manufacturers are right in claiming that it terminates DNA chain formation – thus spiking our own best gun in any toxic tort suit. And he's equally clueless about 'HIV'.
Yet Rasnick chose himself to speak on ARV drugs after deciding that he was the AIDS dissident movement's leading expert on the subject.
Nobody ever said that speaking at RA 2009 was contingent on the speaker being the leading expert. Rasnick knows more about IRD/IRIS than anyone else that I know. There are probably a dozen speakers possible on this subject. I'm not going to rank them.
It's correct that Rasnick has been to Pubmed, run a search on IRD/IRIS, and downloaded all the papers he could find on the subject. He did a very good job downloading them.
But do you see how Crowe is now scuttling away, like a crab from a torch light, from the top expert criterion he and Rasnick once asserted?
Do you see how these buggers just manufacture arbitrary ex post facto decision-criteria and justifications with no regard for the truth?
It is also wrong to say that the conference was "controlled" by RA. We suggested topics to speakers but did not control what they said in any way.
The selection of the topics and the choice of the speakers obviously determined the scientific ambit of the conference.
Rasnick was given or just took the job of inviting the speakers and choosing their topics – although, as appears from this latest mail under discussion, Crowe was actively involved in this too.
Rasnick believes in 'HIV' (because Peter does) and he is aware that the Perth Group contend his belief in 'HIV', like a friendly demon possessing us, to be extremely foolish.
Rasnick knows, as Crowe does, that the existence of 'HIV' is the burning unresolved issue that has long crippled our movement. It cripples us because we can't progress while we contradict one another on this most basic aspect of AIDS dissident science.
The first thing Crowe does to ensure that we remain crippled and ineffective against the orthodoxy is to reject the Perth Group's request that he make provision at the conference for Eleni to debate Peter on the existence of HIV. Crowe rejects this out of hand.
Rasnick then contrives to keep the awkward issue of whether 'HIV' has been shown to exist out of the conference hall, first by asking Eleni to speak to the 'HIV tests' only, and then by rejecting her request that I present her missing virus science on her behalf.
It's manifestly obvious that in truth the conference was completely controlled by RA, and particularly by Crowe and Rasnick who in practical terms run it.
We chose speakers, we suggested broad topic areas to ensure good coverage of topics at the conference, and we left everything else to the speakers. I only saw one or two presentations before the conference when they were sent to me by the authors on their own initiative. We made no attempt to control the content.
Crowe and Rasnick saw to it that the all-important topic of whether 'HIV' had been shown to exist or not was kept out of the conference. Relative to this, with all due respect to some of the outstanding veteran dissident activists who spoke, all other topics presented were same-old same-old flim-flam.
Crowe first made sure that there would be no examination of Peter's claim that 'HIV' has most certainly been proved to exist, because he didn't want to see Peter walking out as he habitually does very unscientifically whenever the embarrassing subject is raised. Second, Rasnick pertinently selected the topics to keep the isolation question far off the agenda.
Wait a minute. What about Etienne who "plagiarized" the Perth Group's ideas and spoke for them? He spoke right after Duesberg.
De Harven claimed that the Perth Group are wrong and that Montagnier 'unquestionably' found a virus, a 'HERV'.
Third, the two of them contrived to ensure that the Perth Group's science wasn't presented at the conference, only a mangled, corrupted, plagiarized version, and one easy to discredit.
Eleni Papadopulos ensured this by refusing to attend. The accusation that she was told to talk on testing is a diversion for two reasons: A talk on testing could easily be changed into a talk on HIV existence, e.g. "HIV Test Flaws Show that HIV Does Not Exist". That was easy! Alternatively, she could have said, "I want to talk on HIV existence" and we would have accepted that.
In truth, she did not refuse to attend and Crowe knows it perfectly well. She said she could only justify the time and (very considerable) expense of attending if a debate could be arranged with Peter of the critical issue that divides and hobbles us, the 'HIV' existence question, with a view to resolving it and breaking our deadlock. It was Crowe who refused.
They '"controlled"' the conference alright: they did everything possible to protect Peter from being seriously challenged on his bogus claim that 'HIV' exists – like a toothless vampire. Crowe's main objective was to ensure that no real science was presented to spoil things for Peter, and this is why he held a cutesy, unchallenging, tame, safe little AIDS conference without any balls. Like a businessman's Rotary Club meeting, everyone grinning.
Anthony Brink is a very sick man, in my opinion. It's sad, I used to greatly respect him. But I have been told by people present at the 2000 conference in South Africa that this type of behaviour is not unusual for him.
Here Crowe takes the cake – from the AIDS orthodoxy's most prolific and flagrant liar, Robert Gallo. One recalls how instead of answering his persistent critic Suzanne Hadley, he tried discrediting her as mad: 'I have my thoughts about Ms. Hadley's relationships with these people. Most of us also find Ms. Hadley to be a quite unusual person.' Crowe's crooked trick is the same as Gallo's, only lower. He pretends a consensus exists among some of the dissident scientists and activists who attended Mbeki's AIDS panel meetings that I have a long history of repeated disturbed conduct showing me to suffer serious mental perturbation.
It would be idle to recount my relationships with all of them, all very warm and very close, all based on great respect and admiration for me and my work, variously expressed in print or in conversation – but mostly chilled now, and painfully for me, since I fired my tokoloshe letter as the opening shot in our long inevitable guerre civile.
The burden of what Crowe says about me behind my back here is that nothing I say should be considered seriously, since it would obviously be ill-advised for anyone to listen to a demented person.
In my polemics I have repeatedly deplored Crowe's mediocrity, pusillanimity, and congenital mendacity. I have even declared him, on the prima facie evidence of documents provided to me, an unconvicted criminal.
I have made these grave claims against Crowe on the basis of the indications I've pertinently stated. As a trial lawyer I know better than to make insupportable claims, and I don't do so; on the contrary, I'm meticulously careful with fact. (A couple of minor details in my tokoloshe letter will be rectified in my forthcoming response to Crowe's reaction to it in a post briefly up on his ARAS website.)
I did not resort to trying to discredit Crowe behind his back by smearing him as mentally ill. I have openly described him as a weak, pathologically dishonest person and a useless, simpering counter-revolutionary element, who is obstructing the progress of our movement with all his reactionary energy – thereby working to stabilize the HIV-AIDS paradigm, to the immense detriment of the people of the South in particular. And I detail precisely why.
Asked by Kalitzkus whether I shouldn't be afforded the right of reply, Crowe answered on 11 December:
I have tried quite hard to get Anthony to talk to me one on one, via email, phone call or whatever.
I did this within minutes of reading the first screed against me.
He has rebuffed every attempt and continues to call me, at various times, a criminal, stupid, venal, machiavellian or any other negative adjective you can think of.
In return, while I have tried to be firm, I have never attacked him in this fashion.
Anthony has to have the desire to communicate with me as two human beings. Until that happens there is no point in you forwarding that message. He will just use the material to attack me again.
Anthony knows that I am open to discussions. He is consumed by hate. I am not. I am just separating myself from his rhetoric until he indicates that he wants to change his approach.
It is true that I have declined to debate my charges against Crowe with him. This is in view of his demonstrated intractability, his unwillingness to consider criticism and seriously discuss policy; and examples abound. His dishonest, evasive, deceitful (p. 11) responses to the Perth Group's indictment of his fatal interference in the Parenzee case were an early indication. Nothing's changed: for the most recent illustration, see his dismissal of an appeal to him by Sadun Kal in Berlin to engage openly – brushing him off by dishonestly smearing him as an enemy plant. No meaningful, fruitful engagement with Crowe has proved possible.
It is true that in his responses to my criticism of his harmful, incorrect line on AIDS dissident science, and crucially, on AIDS dissident strategy, Crowe has never 'attacked' me as 'a criminal, stupid, venal, machiavellian'.
Nor has he 'attacked' me as 'a weak, pathologically dishonest person and a useless, simpering counter-revolutionary element, who is obstructing the progress of our movement with all his reactionary energy'.
This is because I am none of these things.
Instead, as he has 'tried to be firm' with me, ever the village schoolmaster, he has gone much further: he has gone about whispering that I'm a psychiatric case and pretending that the dissident scientists, clinicians and activists whom I met in 2000 agree with him. This is the language of 'hate' from the simple-minded, low cunning mediocrity with nothing left to say.
In conclusion, I hope Eleni won't mind me repeating her question to me on the phone a few weeks ago. Referring to Crowe and Rasnick she asked me with genuine perplexity: 'How can Peter allow himself to be surrounded by people like this?'
POSTSCRIPT: On 15 December 2009, the day after this piece was published online, the Perth Group posted a one-line notice on their website: 'Due to irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences we disassociate ourselves from the Rethinking AIDS Group.' This is the notice Crowe had refused to read at his RA conference in November, notwithstanding the Perth Group's full dissociation statement emailed to him and other prominent AIDS dissidents on 18 September.
Many thanks to Claus Jensen for critical suggestions and contributions.