The president of RA replies, and the RA board all think he's tremendous how clever he is
18 December 2009
I am responding to this email because it was cc'd to me and directly criticizes and insults me. I apologize to people who are tired of this bickering. I feel their pain ... sincerely.
I will therefore keep it short. Regarding the Djamel Tahi video:
The problem with throwing dirt around is that it can blow back in your face sometimes. Go to your own website and look on the front page for any references to Djamel Tahi. Right, there aren't any.
Let me help you out. You click on "Papers published in Continuum magazine" (no mention of Tahi or a video) and then click on "Interview with Luc Montagnier Did Luc Montagnier discover HIV?" (no mention of Tahi or a video). I think you'll admit that you could be doing a better job promoting this interview.
I don't believe you have the video posted at all.
The first time the video was published on the web that I'm aware of was by Torsten Engelbrecht on his personal site, with the assistance of David Crowe, not the Perth Group.
You had the opportunity to promote this video in 1997. You could have got permission to copy and sell VHS cassettes and you didn't do it. You set up your own website sometime later and could have put the video there, but you didn't do it. You could have put a link to the transcript on the front page, but you didn't do that either.
Perhaps we should have promoted this a whole lot more. But in this case, "we" includes you. We are all at fault. Your implication is that it's just Celia, David Crowe and the other people you've put in the bad box. Why is none of your sarcasm directed at yourself and all of your other supporters who were alive in 1997 and who did nothing to promote this interview either.
As Celia has noted, you are now in the business of inventing quotes and distorting history.
The paper on HIV and cancer is not mine, it is merely a link from the website. I do not claim to agree with everything said in articles linked from the website. Quite often I link mainstream articles and hope people can see the flaws. I have put papers up with theories about mycobacteria that I also don't endorse. I think the Ruggiero theories are interesting, and I think other people should be exposed to them. If you write a paper on your semen-HIV-antibody-AIDS theory I will post a link. I won't necessarily agree with it. I may even post it before I've read and analyzed the whole thing. Because it's important to provide this news to the thousands of people who frequent my site every month.
I have written about HIV and other virus non-existence since 1998. It is absurd to say that I avoid the topic. Our difference is strategic. I do not always believe that it is the best conversation starter, particularly for people who have been absorbing the propaganda for years. I had lunch with two such people, engineers, today. They asked me some questions and we talked about quite a few topics until one of them said, "But, HIV does exist?". At that point they were ready to hear that, well, it has never been purified. And further, purification is necessary to validate any HIV tests. If I had started with the non-existence we probably never would have got as far as we did.
You have completely twisted my refusal to accept your demand that, "anyone who either discusses or writes anything about the above stated topics [non-existence of HIV] must clearly state that we were the first to put forward these ideas and that we presented detailed basic scientific evidence to support our claims" and have distorted it into saying that people MUST NOT give the Perth Group credit. First of all, RA cannot control what people do. But even if we could, it is absurd to insist that I, for example, at lunch today, mention that the first people to hypothesize that HIV does not exist was the Perth Group. Certainly if I was writing an article on the subject I would credit the Perth Group, and I always have. However to state that this should be done in every discussion and every written communication is absurd. The theory is more important than the names of the people who first created it. If there's time and space for both, great. But if I have limited time, I won't necessarily mention your name. We could have negotiated a rewording to incorporate my concerns about this, but you refused to accept any changes.
Your sarcasm demeans you, I'm afraid, Val. You should try treating Celia, myself, and others you have attacked, as peers, with respect, listening to what they have to say. You might be very surprised at the results.
Finally, I have some questions about the Perth Group itself. You signed, "Eleni, Val and the PG". I assume you meant, "and the other members of the PG". Who are the members of the Perth Group? How does someone become a member? Who makes the membership admission decisions? Is there an executive or other decision making and organizing body? Does the PG make decisions democratically or by the fiat of its executive?