Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six



Anthony Brink


Part Four

Crowe’s Rethinking AIDS website

On 13 June 2006, two days after the Rethinking AIDS group meeting ended, its website appeared. It had taken long enough. According to the WHOIS database, the ‘Domain Name …’ was ‘created on’ on 24 January 2005 (‘Creation Date’). As mentioned in Part One, when the previous Rethinking AIDS Group disintegrated, its website went down and its domain was acquired by a commercial reseller, and then another. According to the web archives read with the WHOIS database, the ‘Rethink AIDS’ (sic) group purchased the domain from the reseller between April and July 2005 (reportedly for $500). The registration information was changed to show the new administrator: new Rethinking AIDS ‘board’ member ‘Bryan Owen’.

The website’s ‘Welcome’ front page featured a link to the Perth Group’s affidavit in the Parenzee case, concisely setting out their case against the existence of ‘HIV’. But not for long. Crowe took it down a few months later to prevent visitors to the website reading it, at the same time that he was persuading Parenzee’s defence counsel Kevin Borick behind the Perth Group’s backs to alter the defence strategy that Borick had agreed with them – from one crisply demonstrating that there’s no proof that ‘HIV’ exists, as they had solidly deposed to and stood cross-examination on unscathed, to one premised squarely on the existence of ‘HIV’ as a harmless virus, as Duesberg claims. Since Crowe considers telling the readily demonstrable truth under oath in court the wrong thing to do; he thinks it’s better to tell the judge lies.

The website’s ‘About RA‘ page repeatedly screwed up the history of scientific dissent from AIDS orthodoxy, wrongly claiming that the original four sentence open letter that Papadopulos-Eleopulos had signed in 1991, among ‘32 scientists with advanced medical degrees’ (untrue) was ‘published in Science (17 Feb. 1995, vol. 267, pp. 945-946)’ (it wasn’t); and when the Perth Group pointed this out, Crowe thanked them and corrected his website, but not his press releases in which he repeatedly persisted in telling it wrong.

What Crowe left unchanged in ‘About RA’ was his opening line:

In 1987, Dr. Peter Duesberg published a paper on cancer research, in which he made the case, almost as an aside, that HIV (a retrovirus, the same class of virus suspected at the time to cause cancer) cannot be the cause of AIDS.

Any uninformed visitor to the Rethinking AIDS website would understand that ‘HIV’ exists as a ‘retrovirus’, and had only to click on Duesberg’s hyperlinked name to see his website and read all his papers contending that ‘HIV’ is a harmless passenger virus neutralized by ‘HIV antibody’. Nowhere in his ‘About RA’ page does Crowe mention the Perth Group’s prior identification of the root trouble with the HIV theory of AIDS, namely that, contrary to Duesberg’s incorrect claim, there’s no proof that ‘HIV … a retrovirus’ exists at all. In fact there’s no mention in the page of the Perth Group and their incomparably more thorough and rigorous scientific work in critiquing and refuting the ‘HIV’ theory of AIDS. (For a long time the Perth Group’s website wasn’t even listed among the links elsewhere on the Rethinking AIDS website.) Uninformed visitors would never know that the Perth Group are the generally acknowledged scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident community in terms of their rigour and intelligence, and, unlike Duesberg, their open readiness to defend their claims and debate with anyone in any forum; and they would never know that the Perth Group had critically examined Duesberg’s ‘case’ that ‘HIV [is] a retrovirus’ and had blown it to pieces.

After reading this criticism of his ‘About RA’ page in my ‘tokoloshe letter‘ of 23 July 2009, Crowe conceded in his reply ‘The Truth about David Crowe’:

Anthony Brink certainly has a point that the “About Rethinking AIDS” page could be improved but he has never suggested this to the RA webmaster let alone specific changes that could be made. Constructive and accurate suggestions are usually implemented, especially if specific text is proposed, and he could have thus so easily disproven his suspicions.

It was a cameo of Crowe’s compulsively dishonest ‘communication style’. Firstly, he writes the ‘text’ for his RA website and is entirely in charge of its content, not ‘the RA webmaster’ Lusardi, who posts on his instructions – hence the corrections Crowe himself made to the errors the Perth Group pointed out to him. But you’d understand from his devious reply that Lusardi was responsible for having airbrushed the Perth Group out of the historical/scientific AIDS dissident frame. And that it was somehow my fault for not telling Lusardi how to paint them back in.

Despite conceding my ‘constructive and accurate … specific … point’ concerning his glaring omission of the Perth Group and their work on his ‘About RA’ page, Crowe proceeded to do nothing to fix it to ‘disprove’ website visitors’ ‘suspicions’ that ‘RA’ – as explained by his ‘About RA’ – page was all about promoting Duesberg’s passenger virus science, which the Perth Group had comprehensively examined and shown to be unsound. Crowe’s assurance that ‘Constructive and accurate suggestions are usually implemented’ was a lie: the leading scientists of the AIDS dissident movement remain unmentioned nobodies on Crowe’s ‘About RA’ page today.

Even though (he’s always telling us) he well understands and unreservedly accepts that the Perth Group have shown Duesberg to be fundamentally wrong in claiming ‘HIV’ has been proved to exist, Crowe trumpets Duesberg’s comprehensively refuted harmless passenger virus nonsense on his ‘About RA’ page as the science of Rethinking AIDS, and at the same time omits any mention there of the Perth Group and their correct science. The latest feature article posted on Crowe’s instructions at the top of the Rethinking AIDS homepage quotes boxer Tommy Morrison parroting Duesberg: ‘HIV doesn’t hurt anybody ... It’s a passenger virus, it doesn’t do anything.’

Former Rethinking AIDS president Etienne de Harven had hardly to spell out the obvious on 28 July 2009: ‘we cannot deny that Peter had a dominant influence’ in the Rethinking AIDS group. Hence his earlier remarks on 14 February 2006 that the Rethinking AIDS website ‘should rather be called a “Berkeley Newsletter”’ and that as ‘Duesberg … keeps silent … his “partisans” arrange for RA to resemble a Berkeley club, excluding the rest of the world!!’. Crowe himself admitted to Jim Wolfe on 28 March 2006:

Regarding Rethinking AIDS, the organization does have a somewhat Duesberg bias but I am working to try to make it more amenable to Perth Group views without supporting attacks on Duesberg who has given so much, and who is such a wonderful person in so many ways.

Which, hosed down, means the ‘Rethinking AIDS … organization’ is biased against the Perth Group and their science – and plainly so. Nobody was ‘attacking’ Duesberg, but by portraying the Perth Group’s comprehensive refutation of his claims concerning the existence of ‘HIV’ in this way, Crowe justified keeping the Perth Group and their missing virus science at the margins.

It was obviously inherently impossible ‘to make’ a club propagating Duesberg’s harmless virus science ‘more amenable to Perth Group views’ that this science was fundamentally defective. And this why Crowe never did ‘make’ his Rethinking AIDS group ‘more amenable’ to the Perth Group, because Duesberg’s and the Perth Group’s scientific ‘views’ are radically antithetic, antipodal, antagonistic and incompatible.

Nine months later on 3 December 2006 Crowe wrote Wolfe again:

I have been quietly lobbying for Rethinking AIDS to be more friendly to the Perth Group viewpoint. Unfortunately it is a bit stacked towards the Duesberg viewpoint, but slowly more is being added.

This hypocritical show was right after Crowe had rejected the Perth Group’s request for representation on his Rethinking AIDS ‘board’. In the light of which it wasn’t surprising to hear:

Unfortunately the group is rather drifting. Apart from the website it really has not accomplished very much.

Although at the June meeting Crowe rejected the Perth Group’s summary record of their work and their plea that it be read in the original (and not de Harven’s plagiarized corruption of it), it nonetheless made a brief, belated appearance on the Rethinking AIDS website on 22 August 2006 via a link entitled The Perth Group on the chronology and content of the Perth Group contribution to the HIV/AIDS debate. A few months later, however, when in early 2007 the revamped, current RA website was substituted, Crowe took the document down. When the Perth Group requested he restore it for the information and advice of visitors to the site, he refused, on the basis, he said, that they were claiming ‘scientific priority’, implying that such claim was false. A year later in an email to Turner on 1 May 2008 Crowe had forgotten his ‘concerns’:

I have sensed that you are very concerned about the scientific priority of questioning the existence of HIV. I think it’s pretty clear that it was your group that first raised this.

Arbitrarily lording it over the Perth Group one minute. The next sucking up to them. Then reversing himself again: when de Harven foolishly accused the Perth Group of having plagiarized their missing virus science from Stefan Lanka, Crowe backed him. Instead of deploring his shameless, baseless charge, Crowe pretended de Harven ‘did have some evidence’ that they’re scientific plagiarists. Knowing he didn’t, knowing he couldn’t have, because de Harven’s accusation was clearly false: ‘it’s pretty clear that it was your group that first … question[ed] the existence of HIV’.

Crowe’s conflation on his website and repeatedly in his press releases – ‘Rethinking AIDS: The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis (“RA” or “the Group”)’ – is contrived to deceive people into believing the two groups are one and the same, and that he leads the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis that Papadopulos-Eleopulos co-founded in 1991. With the same fraudulent intent, Crowe conflates her and her fellow ‘founders’ of her Group with ‘key members’ of his Rethinking AIDS ‘board’ by listing their names up in the same paragraph. The false impression he creates is that Papadopulos-Eleopulos is part of his Rethinking AIDS group, led by him.

Even after the Perth Group formally dissociated from Crowe and his Rethinking AIDS group on the grounds of ‘irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences’ (mentioned below), Crowe persists with these frauds to maintain and perpetuate these misapprehensions. But fraud comes naturally to David Crowe.

Subsequent to a vote of the general membership of the Alberta Greens in September 2008 ejecting Crowe from their management board as Chief Financial Officer, the new board uncovered a horrifying can of financial worms with grave criminal and civil ramifications for the party. Inter alia, for the purpose of securing a loan, Crowe and his board had falsely represented to a bank that the party was incorporated, well knowing it wasn’t. And without the knowledge of the other members of the board Crowe and another had secretly made illegal loans to the party in contravention of applicable election law. On 7% interest too, which is to say Crowe was privately profiting financially from his involvement with the party, just as he does from his Rethinking AIDS group. Crowe appreciated the gross irregularity of signing the loan agreement twice wearing two different hats – on one hand in his personal capacity as lender and on the other in his fiduciary capacity to the party as CFO: a textbook case of conflict of interest. So with the low cunning of the practised criminal, Crowe contrived to cover his traces. First, in place of his own name on the loan agreement as the lender he entered his company Cellular Networking Perspectives Ltd (never mind that money-lending to political parties was ultra vires and therefore unlawful in terms of his company’s founding memorandum), and then signed on his company’s behalf without stipulating his name in clear print. But here’s the best part. His fraud would have been too obvious had his signatures matched, so he signed the dotted line twice in completely different fashion, the one signature being his name written out clearly (which he scanned and pasted in as a graphic file), the other being full of swirling circles to look like someone else signing, only you see the same sort of giveaway ‘D…’ at the start and ‘…we’ at the end.

These and many other serious financial irregularities were disclosed in the financial documents and statements obtained by the new board. The rest of them Crowe unlawfully withheld; and unable to comply with financial reporting legislation, the new board was consequently forced to deregister the party in July 2009 for this and other reasons arising from Crowe’s management of the party. Latest news is that on 31 March 2010 Crowe was sued for an order compelling him to turn over the financial statements he didn’t want his successors to see.

As at 10 April 2010, Crowe continues to bill himself as ‘Treasurer, Green Party of Alberta’ on his Rethinking AIDS website, despite his ouster more than a year and a half before.

When I exposed Crowe’s grave misconduct in the HIVAIDSPARADIGM discussion forum, Rethinking AIDS ‘board’ member and webmaster Frank Lusardi deplored my ‘despicable’ and ‘vile campaign’ against this ‘perfectly decent man’. But of course: Crowe had bought his support by fixing him a salary from the Rethinking AIDS operating account as well.

Lusardi is in the Duesberg club: in his review of Rebecca Culshaw’s book Why I Quit HIV at, he claimed that she had ‘Not[ed] the long recognized near impossibility of isolating HIV particles even from advanced AIDS patients.’ Which is to say it’s very difficult but not impossible to isolate HIV particles – as Duesberg wrote in his 1989 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

Due to Extremely Low Titres, HIV Can Be Isolated Only With Great Difficulty From AIDS Patients … virus isolation, although possible in up to 80% of AIDS cases is technically very difficult … It depends on reactivation of dormant proviruses from one or a few latently infected lymphocytes among millions of uninfected lymphocytes from AIDS patients.

In fact, what Culshaw noted at pages 45-46 of her book, after the Perth Group, was that

The tests have never been verified against the presence of HIV because, to date, there is no clear evidence that HIV has been isolated in such a manner as to be acceptable as a gold standard for antibody tests.

By which she meant proof of purification, as the Perth Group have explained,

separation of viral particles from everything else and proof of their existence as shown by clear electron micrographs

Jim West recalls to me that when he, Lusardi, Jonathan Campbell, and Mitchel Cohen were fixing to take the orthodoxy on at a professional HIV-AIDS forum, and he emphasized the need to

narrowly focus on the simplicity of no isolation … Frank immediately dropped out.

In his 28 July 2009 email de Harven recounted:

In March 2008 my presidential term was up, and I didn’t want to volunteer for a second term. David Crowe was the only candidate, and his nomination was strongly pushed by Bob Leppo. He was unanimously appointed by the Board.

Here was the paid reward Crowe had fixed for himself for working so loyally as a political asset and servant of the Duesberg passenger virus club; for constantly acting against the Perth Group’s in their endeavour to demonstrate the real, fundamental problem with the ‘HIV’ theory of AIDS, the missing virus problem; and for his tireless efforts in helping the medical industrial complex stabilize the ‘HIV’ theory of AIDS by stabilizing the myth of ‘HIV’.

Next: Part Five