Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six



Anthony Brink


Part Three

The Rethinking AIDS group’s first ‘board’ meeting

The new Rethinking AIDS ‘board’ held its first meeting on 10–11 June 2006 in New York. Indisposed by a car accident, President De Harven couldn’t attend so Crowe, being an eminently moderate sort of person, presided as ‘Moderator’.

The ‘Report’ of the meeting disconfirmed de Harven’s claim that the new ‘board’ was the same as the defunct one ‘without any modification’ – likewise Crowe’s implication to the same effect: ‘the organization … had a board of directors, with Etienne de Harven as president [which] David Rasnick asked David to join to help him revitalize’.

As at January 2001, when the then ‘moribund’ Rethinking AIDS Group was croaking out its last newsletter before its decease, its fourteen-member ‘Board of Directors’ comprised Roberto Giraldo, Paul Philpott, David Rasnick, Charles Thomas, Harvey Bialy, Celia Farber, Russell Schoch, Tom Bethell, Charles Geshekter, Gordon Stewart, Peter Duesberg, Mark Cradock, John Lauritsen, and Christine Maggiore.

Only six of them were listed as ‘board’ members of Crowe’s new Rethinking AIDS operation, according to the ‘Director’ list published in the ‘Report’: Giraldo, Rasnick, Geshekter, Stewart, Duesberg, and Maggiore. (As de Harven mentioned, a seventh member of the defunct ‘Board of Directors’, Harvey Bialy, who was listed by Rasnick for the new group ‘board’, dropped out before the first ‘board’ meeting.)

Crowe was 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.

Duesberg’s 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.

The ‘Report’ from the meeting recorded that

The Perth Group provided a summary 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.

The ‘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).

On the other hand,

Dr. Peter 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.

Neither the ‘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 online.

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”

The scam 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.

Crowe’s 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:

Rethinking AIDS--an international group of more than 2,600 scientists, doctors, journalists, health advocates and other.

It isn’t.

A ‘board’ 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 twice ignores them as irrelevant.)

Crowe’s 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 (coming up).

The ‘Report’ recorded further:

Nominations 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.

Crowe made 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 has 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.)

Neither ‘in 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.

For the 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 show already.

In ‘The 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:

Eleni 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 estimation.

Crowe’s 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:

David [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.

Crowe’s 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.

His 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’ members’ 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.

Crowe’s 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.

Although 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.

In sum, 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.

The ‘Final 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.

Crowe’s ‘revision’ to his ‘bylaws’ richly provide:

The Board of Directors will include three paid Officers, elected by the Board, namely: one President, one Treasurer, and one Webmaster.

Besides 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.

Crowe’s 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.

To distract from his glaring financial conflict of interest corrupting his every move, Crowe contrived up a fatuous diversion couched in home-brewed, cod legalese:

All members 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.

The ‘Report’ of the meeting also noted that:

David will 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.

The reason 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 before.

Leppo 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 Your donation will help convince the IRS that we have more than one major donor. Thanks for your patience!

Concerning what one would have imagined to be the all-important ‘RA Role in Scientific Analysis’, given that Crowe repeatedly touts ‘RA’ as a ‘scientific organization’,

There was no time for this discussion although many other discussions over the weekend touched on this area.

‘Scientific 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):

“What has 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].

The main 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.

For 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 Continuum 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:

Roberto Giraldo said it would be good if this could take place next year, as it could help set the scene for [the XVI International AIDS] conference in Mexico in 2008.

There was 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.

And when 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.

And when 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):

Georg has 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.

Crowe was 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:

I certainly think the idea of a conference in Vienna in 2010 is wonderful.

I have 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?

His 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 ‘realistic’.

Concerning ‘Establishing Cooperative Relationships and Outreach’, the June 2006 meeting ‘Report’ similarly recorded:

There was no time for this discussion, although many other discussions over the weekend touched on this area.

Again Crowe 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 dismissed it.

Apparently 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:

David Crowe 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 [‘of 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.

The ‘PR 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.

Veteran 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.

Most ‘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.

When 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.

Next: Part Four