now billed as a ‘Director’. So was Duesberg’s wife Sigrid: new
‘Director’ in charge of the cash being put up by new ‘Director’ Bob
Leppo, long-time financial backer of Duesberg and Rasnick too – and as
we say over here in Africa, the hand that feeds is the hand that rules.
Other new ‘board’ members listed were Etienne De Harven as ‘President’,
and Claus Koehnlein, Christian Fiala, Frank Lusardi, and Bryan Owen.
wife Siggi and Owen would leave, and Maggiore would pass away in 2008.
To replace the three vacancies, Crowe brought in three safe new ‘board’
members: Henry Bauer, who would sound off in Crowe’s support in opposing
the Perth Group; Helen Lauer, who, equally usefully to Crowe, would
remain unconcerned and unengaged; and ‘Non-Voting Board Representative
Sandra Mason Treasurer’, who nobody had ever heard of, whose opinions
didn’t matter enough to be counted, and who as a ‘Board Representative’
represented no one other than Crowe.
‘Report’ from the meeting recorded that
Group provided a
of their contributions to the HIV/AIDS debate, including lists of
scientific and popular publications. They had requested that it be
uploaded to the RA website, but there were concerns over some of the
statements (mainly the first and last paragraph). … There was no support
for putting this document on the website.
‘concerns over some of the statements’ were Crowe’s alone; he’d state
them later on, opportunistically flip-flopping and repeatedly
contradicting himself (discussed below).
Duesberg gave a very well received presentation comparing the infectious
and chemically-induced theories of AIDS during the open portion of the
meeting. It will be placed on the RA website.
‘presentation’ nor the ‘RA website’ mentioned that the
‘chemically-induced theories of AIDS’ were not Duesberg’s, but
were the Perth Group’s – and
uninformed ‘RA website’ visitors could have learned this had Crowe not
rejected the Perth Group’s request to put a summary record of their work
To create a
veneer of faux legality and legitimacy to his moves in gathering
personal power over the international AIDS dissident movement and in
seizing the political hill, Crowe cooked up some ‘bylaws’.
The main thing was to invent an estate to command:
Signatories, past and future, of the initial 1991 RA statement shall
automatically be considered as “Members of the RA Group”
had several crooked legs. For a start, the unpublished letter that
Papadopulos-Eleopulos and other members of her Group for the Scientific
Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis signed in 1991 was not an ‘RA
statement’: the Group and Rethinking AIDS were different associations
formed fifteen years apart, whose only members in common were Duesberg
and Stewart. Nor for that matter was Crowe’s new Rethinking AIDS group
the same as the preceding Rethinking AIDS Group which had disintegrated
under Giraldo. Crowe’s misrepresentation of the Group’s letter as an ‘RA
statement’ didn’t make it such any more than telling a lie about
something makes it the truth.
chicanery in purporting to create a two-and-a-half-thousand member
organization under his charge (first indirectly via de Harven as his
powerless dupe, and then directly) merely by writing a deeming provision
into his ‘bylaws’ to incorporate the 1991 Group for the Scientific
Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, as well as the individuals who’d
subsequently signified their support for its proposal, was so crass as
to be ridiculous. One acts to join a genuine organization; one isn’t
‘automatically … considered’ a member, except for the purposes of
creating a false public impression that the organization comprises more
than the few individuals acting to form it. And to make a fake entry on
your CV to mislead your business associates. Hence Crowe’s false claim
heading his press releases, on 8 April 2009 for instance:
AIDS--an international group of more than 2,600 scientists, doctors,
journalists, health advocates and other.
signifies a committee directing an enterprise of a larger company of
people, a management committee chosen by and answerable to a membership.
Crowe’s use of the word ‘board’ is accordingly a deceptive misnomer,
because he and his ‘board’ don’t represent and direct any membership
beyond themselves. Fact is Crowe’s Rethinking AIDS group has no members
besides its ‘board’: the members of the ‘board’ comprise the members of
the group and vice versa. The ‘board’ and the group are identical and
indistinguishable. And since most of the ‘board’ members are almost
entirely inactive, the Rethinking AIDS ‘board’/group functions
essentially as Crowe’s alter ego, his corporate ego. (When the members
of the ‘board’
vote against him he
ignores them as irrelevant.)
habit of operating behind corporate personae to generate power over
others and to further his personal agenda can be seen in his pretence of
posing as ‘President’ of his Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society of one
individual, him; his use of his commercial company Cellular Networking
Perspectives Ltd, of which he’s sole director and shareholder, as a
cover for his illegal financial deals (coming up); and in his behaviour
as treasurer and board member of the Alberta Greens, refusing to accept
a party vote ousting him, and running out of the hall with all the
party’s books of account to hold a furtive meeting in the car park
outside, as if he were still in office, to scheme against his successor
‘Report’ recorded further:
for board positions were deferred until a conference call in September.
The revised bylaws require nomination by any two board members plus a
vote for approval of a two thirds majority of the entire board.
no provision in his ‘bylaws’ for AIDS dissident scientists and activists
around the world, whom he claimed to be the members of his new
organization, to propose, to second, and to elect representatives to act
on their behalf, speak in their name, and direct and control strategic
policy and the scientific line to be taken in attacking the false
science of the AIDS orthodoxy. Similarly, there was no constitutional,
democratic provision to remove him or other members of the ‘board’. Only
the small Duesberg claque that Rasnick and Crowe had assembled as
‘board’ members were given these powers. (To the extent that de Harven
opposed the Perth Group; has worked to
marginalize them even as he claims ‘a “reactivated RA” that
would not include Val and Eleni would be meaningless’; has
plagiarized and then ignorantly corrupted
their science; and then, projecting his guilt, has falsely
accused them of plagiarism – he’s naturally at home in Crowe’s
Rethinking AIDS group.)
September’ 2006 nor at any other time was there any ‘nomination’ of any
member(s) of the Perth Group ‘for board positions’ by Crowe or any other
member of ‘the existing board’. Apparently Crowe and a majority of other
‘existing board members … concluded’, following a debate of the matter,
that the Perth Group’s ‘participation’ would not likely ‘be cooperative’
with his Duesberg club.
same reason there was never any ‘nomination’ of any of the Perth Group’s
known supporters, such as veteran American AIDS dissidents Michael
Ellner, Rodney Knoll, and Christine Johnson, all battling in the
trenches for many years while Rasnick and Crowe were still in bed
asleep. In fact in September 2006 there was no ‘nomination’ of anyone
else to join the ‘board’ at all. Crowe had enough token members for his
Truth about David Crowe’ Crowe divulged the real truth of the matter,
the honest truth for a change, namely that giving Papadopulos-Eleopulos
a position on his ‘board’ had always been out of the question for him.
In his opinion the leading, most brilliant, most rigorous, most radical,
most prolific, most productive, and most important scientist of the AIDS
dissident movement was unsuitable:
Eleopulos rarely communicates with other rethinkers and therefore board
members are not familiar enough with her communication style to
understand whether she could be a cooperative member of the board.
As a core
founding member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the
HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, whose
first paper on the subject had lent
the Group its name, Papadopulos-Eleopulos was unsuitable in his
claim here was a characteristically blatant lie told to manufacture a
transparently false justification for excluding and marginalizing
Papadopulos-Eleopulos to his and the Duesberg club’s advantage.
Papadopulos-Eleopulos has always communicated readily with other AIDS
dissidents, old and new, as any number of Rethinking AIDS group members
can attest and eager novices such as Sadun Kal too. She doesn’t use
email herself, but no one who has approached her through her long-time
corresponding associate Turner or other Royal Perth Hospital colleagues
concerning any matter of substance has ever alleged she’s
uncommunicative or that she communicates in any sort of unsatisfactory
‘style’. On the contrary, she has a famously warm, direct, helpful,
informative, and often delightfully wry ‘style’.
Even if it
were true, which it isn’t, Crowe’s lying reason for excluding
Papadopulos-Eleopulos from his ‘board’ would have disqualified many of
his silent ‘board’ members who ‘rarely communicate with other
rethinkers’, Duesberg among them.
As far as
Crowe was concerned, Turner’s (actually the Perth Group’s) criticism of
his sabotage of the Parenzee case disqualified him as a possible member
of his ‘board’ too:
[Crowe] has stated his personal
view that until Val Turner stops attacking board members (not just
himself) and instead chooses to enter into constructive dialog he
obviously cannot be considered as a potential board member.
habitual segueing from his ‘personal view’ to the views of other members
of his group, when it was obvious that he hadn’t actually canvassed them
and was falsely and presumptuously imputing his own to the rest,
revealed his ‘board’ for the sham it is.
dishonest mischaracterization of Turner’s (in fact the Perth Group’s)
criticism of his disastrous interference in the Parenzee case as
unconstructive querulousness, and their critiques of other ‘board’
defective science and scientific misconduct
as ‘attacking’ them insinuated personal pettiness, whereas the Perth
Group’s criticism has consistently been perfectly professional and the
record shows it.
basic take-home message was that for as long as the Perth Group remained
critical of his and his ‘board’ members’ bad science, dismal judgement
and corrupt ethics, there would be no room for the world’s leading AIDS
dissident scientists in his Rethinking AIDS group.
the Perth Group hadn’t suggested that their ‘participation’ should ‘come
at the price of Duesberg’s’, Crowe’s choice of words (in Part Two)
indicated his appreciation that inevitably it would, in that the Perth
Group had shown Duesberg’s harmless passenger virus science to be wrong,
and were the Perth Group admitted to the ‘board’ it would be sooner
rather than later that he’d have to face up to this and concede it, or
stubbornly retire from the scene, or be ignominiously ousted. Like a
cabbage past its sell-by date removed from the shelves at the grocery
and thrown into the tip.
Crowe knows very well that the Perth Group are right, but he doesn’t
want them in his group, because he doesn’t want the scientists among his
‘existing board members’ surrounding him shown up as clueless bumblers.
It’s an illustration of the oft-observed principle that able people
surround themselves with able people, whereas inept people surround
themselves with inept people to protect themselves; it’s in their nature
to do so.
revision’ Crowe made to the ‘bylaws’ on ‘January 24, 2007’ contained a
striking new clause. Seeing as Leppo had been funding Duesberg’s and
Rasnick’s cancer research, Crowe figured he’d make a grab for some of
his cash for himself too. It was as easy as writing a new ‘bylaw’
requiring the treasurer to divert some of the organization’s operating
funds provided by Leppo into Crowe’s personal bank account – for which
favour, and to still any objection, Crowe also stipulated in his new
‘bylaw’ that the treasurer could help himself to some too. With a slice
of the cash also paid to the webmaster. Since why should they spend
their valuable time working on the problem of AIDS for nothing? Like the
rest of us do.
‘revision’ to his ‘bylaws’ richly provide:
of Directors will include three paid Officers, elected by the Board,
namely: one President, one Treasurer, and one Webmaster.
Crowe, no other member of the ‘Board of Directors’ was actively running
his Rethinking AIDS group in any sense, as de Harven found out and noted
while president; in fact they weren’t even performing the most basic
oversight function. So none had any cause to complain about Crowe’s open
embezzlement of Rethinking AIDS operating funds or about the open bribes
he fixed to buy off potential critics and discontents.
conduct as ‘President’ of the Rethinking AIDS ‘board’ to the Perth
Group’s prejudice is partly explained by his conflict of financial
interest (his other motives will be canvassed below). To continue
earning his income from working to prop up, promote, protect and defend
Duesberg’s junk science, Crowe is bound to work against the Perth Group
and their correct science, the science he knows to be correct, or Leppo
will nominate someone else to replace him and pay him instead.
from his glaring financial conflict of interest corrupting his every
move, Crowe contrived up a fatuous diversion couched in home-brewed, cod
of the Board of Directors shall personally certify that they have
absolutely no conflict of interest with any of the manufacturers of ARV
drugs and/or of “HIV” tests.
As if there
was any real prospect of such a conflict, and any sanction available to
penalize a contravention of the rule beyond being asked to leave the
circle. As if Crowe’s entire Rethinking AIDS operation wasn’t hopelessly
compromised from the beginning by having its Duesberg-supporting funder
Leppo on the ‘Board of Directors’ – a voting member of the group
manifestly much more equal than the others – to direct the
organization’s scientific and strategic policy and its operations.
‘Report’ of the meeting also noted that:
coordinate with Siggi to determine whether establishing RA as a
membership charity (501c3) is possible … Action: Investigate
requirements for board meetings based on IRS requirements and the BBB
‘Gold Standard’ for charities.
for this is that, as already mentioned, the IRS had deregistered the
previous Rethinking AIDS Group when it dissolved and lapsed and
consequently stopped submitting annual financial statements, and Leppo
understandably wanted his financial support to be tax deductible, as
remains the Rethinking AIDS group’s sole financial supporter, as far as
the IRS is concerned, and hasn’t been duped by Crowe’s attempt to fudge
this fact by recycling a hundred dollars from his ‘President’s’ salary
back in to the coffers to build a different impression, and by
soliciting all of $58 from two other people via
his Facebook cause page. Where he
wrote a year back:
I am still
working on accepting donations. I have our treasurer contacting the IRS
to change our status to a public charity. Only then will Causes allow us
to accept donations. However, anyone can donate via
donation will help convince the IRS that we have more than one major
donor. Thanks for your patience!
what one would have imagined to be the all-important ‘RA Role in
Scientific Analysis’, given that Crowe repeatedly touts ‘RA’ as a
no time for this discussion although many other discussions over the
weekend touched on this area.
Analysis’ was evidently much less important to Crowe and his Rethinking
AIDS group than such pressing, immensely relevant personal growth
issues, for which there was ample discussion time, as (no, I’m not
making this up, Crowe did):
happened to me as a result of my involvement?” Directors are requested
to send the answer to the question to Anthony
[Liversidge, Duesberg’s adoring champion, and insulting detractor of the
Perth Group, at his
Science Guardian blog].
reason Crowe made ‘no time’ at the meeting for ‘discussion’ of the
critical issue of whether ‘RA’ should play a ‘Role in Scientific
Analysis’ is because whereas searching, radical ‘Scientific Analysis’
was the very object of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the
HIV/AIDS Hypothesis co-founded by Perth Group leader Eleni
Papadopulos-Eleopulos in 1991, the contrary purpose of Crowe’s
Rethinking AIDS group formed a decade and a half later was precisely to
suppress it, and work to suppress it he constantly did.
instance, the ‘Report’ minuted a proposal by ‘Neville Hodgkinson
[following] a meeting with Christian Fiala’ that the Rethinking AIDS
group should convene a ‘conference exploring and highlighting challenges
to the HIV/AIDS theory’ focusing directly on the problem that ‘At
present there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or
absence of antibodies to HIV in human blood’ – in other words
pertinently addressing the lack of proof that ‘HIV’ exists as a gold
standard for ‘HIV antibody’ tests, and that there can therefore be no
‘HIV antibodies’, as the Perth Group pointed out to Duesberg a decade
earlier in their
debate, but which he persisted in disputing at incalculable
cost to scientific progress in discrediting the false science of AIDS.
Hodgkinson’s and Fiala’s conference proposal found some support:
Giraldo said it would be good if this could take place next year, as it
could help set the scene for
International AIDS] conference in Mexico
obviously no support for such a conference expressed by Crowe, according
to the ‘Report’, because if the isolation question was addressed and
resolved it would be the end of Duesberg and the collapse of his
Duesberg-orientated Rethinking AIDS group. This would mean Crowe would
have to go back to being ‘President’ of his one-man Alberta Reappraising
AIDS Society. And ‘activist with GARLAN’, as he puts it impressively –
the dead Yahoo forum he tried to get going for the discussion of legal
strategy, concerning which, as a businessman, he considers himself
especially knowledgeable. Needless to say, there was no Rethinking AIDS
conference on the ‘HIV’ question held the ‘next year’ in 2007.
Crowe and Rasnick were organizing their first Rethinking AIDS conference
in Oakland, California, in November 2009, and the Perth Group asked him
to set up a debate there between themselves and Duesberg on the ‘HIV’
isolation issue, Crowe refused. Indeed, he
contrived to ensure the Perth Group’s science
on the missing virus problem wasn’t presented at the conference at all.
For his part Rasnick left the issue clean off the speaker programme; and
it was only following an outcry among AIDS dissidents that Crowe moved,
maladroitly, to try cooling things down by asking de Harven to present
an unauthorized, uncredited, plagiarized, bastardized, mangled version
of the Perth Group’s science on the subject, despite their opposition.
Only pouring fuel on the flames in doing so.
again in January 2010 Martin Barnes and Georg von Wintzingerode repeated
Hodgkinson’s and Fiala’s proposal for the critical debate the Perth
Group craved (I’m quoting from different mails):
suggested a panel with Eleni and Peter. … Georg and I proposed in our
letter that Val and Eleni and Peter resolve the existential issue in
private … … We consider it essential that this be resolved. … They could
communicate in person, send envoys, email, whatever dialogue method they
choose. … I think the current situation is intolerable. It is a major
reason why we are not taken seriously.
predictably opposed, and raised vacuous ‘concerns’ about it, coating
them all in the sickening poisoned syrup of a cheap cockroach trap. On
26 January 2010 he wrote Barnes:
think the idea of a conference in Vienna in 2010 is wonderful.
concerns about the resolution of the existential question. I’ll just ask
my questions and give my opinions and you can think about them (or not).
· It seems that you have changed
from the desire to have a public debate to having an ongoing dialog
between holders of different viewpoints. Will this be public, how?
· I don’t think it’s right or
realistic to presuppose that the outcome will be a unified position. It
is certainly not scientific to have this goal although it’s reasonable
to have it as a hope or desire.
· Is the purpose to pick people
whose opinions you want to unify or to provide a public forum whereby
rethinkers can decide which position they support?
· Let’s assume that the handful
of people who participate in this process unify their positions. Is it
then your intent to somehow make this position an official dogma of the
rethinking movement? How will people who do not hold this position,
despite the agreement of a few, be treated?
stupidity and dishonesty leap off the page: the self-imagined natural
leader of men handing down pearls of advice. Garbling the most
transparently manipulative, misrepresentative, irrelevant and clueless
drivel. With his perverted gift for setting the positive negatively, the
negative positively. The entire point of science, as opposed to religion
and politics with their ‘official dogma[s]’, is to thrash out competing
views and claims by presenting and arguing the evidence for them in
debate, at the conclusion of which the one is proved right and the other
is proved wrong. So as to settle the scientific controversy in question
– in casu, whether ‘HIV’ has been proved to exist or not – and
arrive at the correct scientific conclusion on this critical issue, and
thereafter attack the HIV-AIDS paradigm with an unanswerable,
impregnable ‘unified position’ on the matter. After twenty years of
fruitless, self-stymieing criticism with a muddle of antagonistic
‘position[s]’ on the existence of ‘HIV’. Science is debated; correct
science is arrived at by debate. In science debate is obligatory, and
science averse to debate is not science. But to the businessman and
smalltime politician, ‘it is certainly not scientific to have this goal
of ... a unified position’ on whether ‘HIV’ exists or not. Such a goal,
achieved through debate, is ‘certainly not scientific’. It’s ‘not
scientific’, oh no, ‘certainly not’. It is neither ‘right’ nor is it
‘Establishing Cooperative Relationships and Outreach’, the June 2006
meeting ‘Report’ similarly recorded:
no time for this discussion, although many other discussions over the
weekend touched on this area.
made no time for discussion of future cooperation and communication with
the leading AIDS dissident scientists he had excluded from his group
because he didn’t want it; he was committed to selling the opposing
Duesberg line. In the years to follow, Crowe avoided ‘Establishing
Cooperative Relationships and Outreach’ with the Perth Group at every
one of the several opportunities arising to obtain their scientific
input. He was never interested in the Perth Group’s scientific acumen
and judgement, and on the occasions they provided it unsolicited he
the idea of the meeting was to impress Leppo by looking busy, with a
troupe of Boy Scouts and Girl Guides led by Eagle Scout Crowe on summer
camp, building flagpoles and everything, holding earnest fireside
discussions of charitable projects to carry out – without achieving
anything meaningful at the end of it all. More than a dozen ‘Actions’
were enthusiastically discussed and agreed; only one, the formation of a
‘PR task force’, was actually performed:
will work with Tom Di Ferdinando and Bryan Owen to develop an RA website
calendar. … Bob Leppo suggested having an ability for people to respond
to the rebuttal
Gallo et al to Celia Farber’s Harpers article’]
on the website. It was also suggested that we write to Gallo and request
a response. …Christine Maggiore moved that we should develop a mission
statement, seconded by Roberto Giraldo. Unanimous approval. … Christine
Maggiore moved that we develop interview bios for the entire board,
seconded by Charles Geshekter. … Christine Maggiore will organize a PR
task force. … Bob Leppo moved that RA board authorize the RA foundation
to make grants for a wider range of purposes, including films and video.
Seconded by Charles Geshekter. … Roberto Giraldo moved that the RA
foundation make grants for Brent Leung’s film based on available funds.
Seconded by Christine Maggiore. Unanimous agreement. … Charles Geshekter
agreed that RA should provide background information to lawyers and
recommend expert witness … Roberto Giraldo agreed. … There was extensive
discussion of what an advisory board really was. It was agreed that it
should contain high profile people who would not be expected to work
actively for RA. It was agreed that a minimum number should be arranged
(e.g. 3) before going public. Email discussion of potential candidates
was recommended. … Bob Leppo moved, seconded by Roberto Giraldo, that we
create a task force on fund raising. Bryan Owen and Siggi Duesberg
should be on it.
taskforce’ idea epitomized the difference between
Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s Perth Group and Crowe’s Rethinking AIDS group –
the latter thinking and working as a grinning, glad-handing businessman
in retail, imagining that the AIDS juggernaut can be halted with anodyne
press releases consistently ignored by the media; and the former
thinking and working as a highly focused physicist, her mind in
overdrive: working on establishing correct science first and foremost;
uniting all forces behind it, tuned like a laser; and facing the
orthodoxy with the sharpest blade available, rammed home into the only
clear chink in its armour: the missing virus problem.
AIDS dissident journalists Joan Shenton and Neville Hodgkinson, who flew
over from England to attend the meeting, were told to wait outside while
‘Director’ Crowe and his elite met privately for ‘confidential’
deliberations during the ‘Closed Session’ held on each of the two days
of the meeting. As the ‘Report’ explained, they only had ‘Guest’ status
at the meeting. Also told to wait outside were Michael Ellner and Tom Di
Ferdinando of HEAL New York, the original and oldest AIDS dissident
organization in the world. What all these stalwart AIDS dissidents have
in common is their staunch support for the Perth Group and their correct
scientific observation that, contrary to Duesberg and his followers’
claims, there’s no proof ‘HIV’ exists. That’s why Crowe excluded them.
‘confidential’ of the matters discussed was a ‘Confidential Report on
Parenzee Case’, a then pending appeal application in Adelaide,
Australia, which Crowe had learned about and was busting to get involved
in. To his dismay it was resolved at the conclusion of the debate that
he and Rethinking AIDS should stay out of it. In contempt of the
resolution against him, Crowe proceeded furtively to involve himself in
the case – with disastrous consequences, resulting in the most damaging
reversal suffered by the AIDS dissident movement since Harvey Bialy
torpedoed and sunk the
pre-absorption and isolation experiments agreed at the second meeting of
Mbeki’s International AIDS Advisory Panel in July 2000.
criticized by the Perth Group for his conduct in sabotaging the case,
Crowe responded by posting a notice on the Rethinking AIDS website
claiming his ‘board’ had endorsed his conduct in defying its resolution
to stay out of it. This is to say, his Rethinking AIDS group had
considered the Perth Group’s complaint in the light of his replies, and
had resolved that their complaint was misconceived, unfounded and
insupportable by any right-thinking person and that Crowe’s abortion of
the case was above reproach, in fact it was exemplary. The Rethinking
AIDS group concurred in and approved of Crowe’s ruinous advice to
defence counsel Borick to change the agreed trial strategy midway
through the trial; to call Rethinking AIDS group scientists Duesberg and
de Harven to contradict the Perth Group’s evidence, and each other (in
the result he didn’t); and to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on
the basis that, contrary to the Perth Group’s testimony, ‘HIV’ indeed
exists but is harmless, as Crowe wanted Duesberg to testify.
As was only
fitting, the June 2006 meeting ended with ‘Closing Remarks (Peter
Duesberg)’ – Crowe’s star scientist, propounding a theory of ‘HIV’ that
nearly everyone present knew to be scientific trash. Crowe clapping
along with everyone else, grinning his ingratiating grin, knowing
Duesberg, Rasnick and Leppo are where the money is, soon to be jingling
in his pocket.