the money he does it for, Crowe’s motivation to work at frustrating and
marginalizing the Perth Group may be found in his self-conception as
more astute in the determination of correct, effective scientific
strategy than the Perth Group are. He actually thinks he’s a more
intelligent person. And believes we need him. He’s convinced he’s the
indispensable leader of the international AIDS dissident movement.
with, unlike the Perth Group and their supporters, he’s a ‘practical’
person, he announced in a statement emailed on 21 January 2009:
Practicality is, unfortunately, not a characteristic of all scientific
We need him
to manage us, in other words. Especially since no other AIDS dissident
has his unique ‘organizational skills’, as he claimed on 22 August 2009
in reply to Jonathan Campbell’s criticism of his decision to exclude me
as the Perth Group’s nominated speaker to present their science at his
Rethinking AIDS group conference in November:
Not only that, your aim appears to be to
destroy RA 2009. While it’s clearly not a perfect conference how can any
sane dissident believe that the movement’s better off without it? Where
else are the organizational skills to arrange something like this? If
such people or organizations exist why haven’t they done it before?
estimation of his unprecedented ability to arrange conferences springs
from his evident ignorance of the numerous international AIDS dissident
conferences that have been convened around the world over the years,
most recently in
Ekaterinburg, Russia, in May 2008,
for which I coordinated the selection and invitation of the foreign
Perth Group are not only impractical, the leading scientists of the AIDS
dissident movement are also too egotistical to be part of his ‘board’.
In an email to Liam Scheff on 1 August 2009 Crowe claimed,
dissidents are too self-directed and opinionated to work in any
organization. That’s okay by me, RA can cooperate with people who can’t
or don’t want to see themselves as part of it. Unfortunately, and this
is a criticism, many dissidents are too unstrategic to recognize that
the accomplishments of RA (such as the RA 2009 conference) will bring us
all forwards and would rather destroy it than see it go forwards in what
they consider a less than perfect form. … If I was to go, who would lead
RA? Would the rethinkers be better off without a scientific
fence yapping and whipped dog whimpering was directed at the Perth
Group, ‘too self-directed and opinionated to work’ with him and his
‘organization’; lacking the necessary ‘practicality’ and ‘organizational
skills’; and ‘too unstrategic’ in doing science – from the mouth of the
jabbering fool who advised Parenzee’s counsel to fundamentally change
his defence strategy in the middle of the hearing; to concede the
orthodox experts’ claim that ‘HIV’ has been proved to exist right after the Perth Group had
testified it hadn’t; to cross-examine the orthodox experts on this
basis; and to call Duesberg and de Harven after the Perth Group had
given their testimony to introduce a welter of contradictory testimony
to really impress the judge and clinch the case.
about the ‘accomplishments of RA (such as the RA 2009 conference)’, the
letter to Science (see extensive critiques and discussion
The AIDS Trap
brochure could not convert their failures – ‘(such as the RA 2009
conference)’ in particular, completely ignored by the orthodoxy and the
media – into successes; and far from ‘bring us all forwards’, Crowe’s
towering ‘accomplishment’ as boss of his Rethinking AIDS group had been
to alienate the universally acknowledged leading AIDS dissident
scientists, with one inept, counterproductive ‘accomplishment’ after
another, to the point of fomenting a permanent division in the AIDS
appreciating his contemptible incompetence at some subconscious level,
Crowe acknowledged that his ‘organization’ is ‘less than perfect’ – only
in science, ‘less than perfect’ facts and arguments adduced on account
of ‘less than perfect’ scientific strategy by muddled amateurs with
grandiose self-estimations are like a failed hunting shot, both useless
and frequently disastrous.
cringing offer to the Perth Group after being rejected by them, ‘RA can
cooperate with people who can’t or don’t want to see themselves as part
of it’, was pathetic. Cooperation is a two-way street, and after
dissociating from Crowe, Duesberg, de Harven, and Bauer and the rest of
the Rethinking AIDS group by reason of ‘irreconcilable scientific and
ethical differences’, the Perth Group would hardly ‘cooperate’ with
them. As if they were equal players anyway.
the Perth Group ‘can’t or don’t want to see themselves as part of’
Crowe’s Rethinking AIDS group is that they are not in fact ‘part of it’,
no matter how he words his ‘bylaws’ to ‘see’ them ‘automatically …
considered’ ‘part of it’, and then falsely claims to the world on his
website and in his press releases that they are ‘part of it’. Even after
they’ve announced that they are decidedly not ‘part of it’.
to Crowe’s self-serving questions, ‘If I was to go, who would lead RA?
Would the rethinkers be better off without a scientific organization?’
are easy. Were Crowe ‘to go’, ‘RA’ would soon enough sink like the
rudderless ship of fools it is.
so presumptuous, so egocentric, Crowe’s questions obscure the blinding
fact that AIDS dissidents already have a ‘scientific organization’, a
real ‘scientific organization’ doing real scientific work, propounding
real science, led by an uncommonly brilliant scientist and scientific
and forensic strategist, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her Perth
But not in
the opinion of the cellphone businessman. The Perth Group aren’t as
‘brilliant’ as he is when it comes to formulating scientific strategy,
since they don’t agree with him that one should contend against the
‘HIV’ theory of AIDS by advancing contradictory scientific claims. They
don’t think ‘high enough status’ is more important than the best known,
clear science presented in wholly truthful, impregnable expert
after the Perth Group’s dissociation from Crowe’s Rethinking AIDS group
on 18 September 2009, Crowe wrote Barnes, underscoring his conviction
that he’s right and the Perth Group are wrong to focus on the
fundamental defect of the ‘HIV’ theory of AIDS, the isolation problem:
mainstream dissidents will understand that being brilliant in one area
does not mean that people are necessarily brilliant in others.
Scientific brilliance does not imply strategic brilliance.
In a mail to
Jason Hart on 26 June 2009 Crowe himself identified the question of
correct strategy as the fundamental bone of contention between him and
the Perth Group:
differences are more strategic than scientific.
Put to him
at my urging that
isolation issue IS the central issue, and I know that many others agree
that it is one of the important issues, but not the only one.
never claimed ‘the isolation issue’ is the ‘only one’, we identified it
as the ‘central issue’. Thus did Crowe deviously avoid the point by dint
of the classic crooked debating trick of setting up a diversionary straw
man, his standard manoeuvre when taxed in argument.
all, for many people, arguing that HIV does not exist as the first step
towards deconstructing the dogma is many steps too far. You have to be
prepared to start by questioning the evidence for the accuracy of the
tests, sexual transmission, the toxicity of the drugs, and so on.
Eventually, somewhere down this road, the light will go on. Some people
may be able to start right here, but not everyone. … To put it another
way, it’s like an atheist parachuting down through time and landing in a
medieval village in France and starting a discussion about whether God
exists. I would hazard a guess that many people whose eyes are just
opening would have difficulty with this being the only approach.
In a court
room, as opposed to a business lounge, the case must be proved or
disproved, and arguments based on ‘the evidence for the accuracy of the
tests, sexual transmission, the toxicity of the drugs’ are nowhere
nearly as cogent as demonstrating that there is no proof that ‘HIV’
exists – establishing which renders all other arguments and debates,
with their practically uncontainable, unmanageable complexities and
elements, redundant in one undercutting stroke. We ‘have to be prepared
to start’ anywhere, anywhere but at the beginning, he reckons; this is
the best way to make the judge’s ‘light ... go on’.
it is a strategic error to put all our eggs in this one basket.
multilayered lie conveyed by Crowe’s inapposite figure of speech takes
some unpacking. The Perth Group didn’t ‘put all our eggs in this one
basket’ in the Parenzee case, as Crowe implied. They didn’t confine
showing ‘HIV’ has not been proved to exist.
dealt with the antibody tests and
why they can’t be relied onto prove ‘HIV’ infection. They
dealt with the fact that there’s no proof that
‘HIV’ is sexually transmitted. But central and foundational
to the defence case was their contention that there’s no proof that
‘HIV’ exists. And for this reason the tests can’t be relied on to prove
infection with ‘HIV’ via sex or any other way. Crowe’s contrary advice
to defence counsel Borick was to stop the advance and shift into reverse
gear after the Perth Group had completed their testimony and stood
cross-examination on it, and to proceed on the basis that their evidence
was wrong: ‘HIV’ does exist.
meant to say with his basket of eggs talk was that when up against
Achilles with all his strength and power, it is a strategic error to aim
at his heel, at the only point where he’s defenceless. This is what
mentioned, Crowe’s concept of sound strategy is to lead a series of
expert witnesses holding radically different, opposing, contradictory
scientific views so that they can contradict one another and destroy the
credibility of each other’s evidence and thereby cause the collapse of
the case. To Crowe’s way of thinking, it’s a ‘strategic error’ to lead
the Perth Group in court to testify that ‘HIV’ has not been proved to
exist, and that for this reason the tests cannot be used to diagnose
‘HIV’ infection, and there’s nothing to sexually transmit; just as it’s
a ‘strategic error’ to keep other dissident scientists propounding
opposing, contradictory views out of the case. The right strategy to
follow, in Crowe’s opinion, is to lead de Harven after the Perth Group
to inform the court that they are ‘WRONG’ in claiming that Montagnier
never found any retrovirus, because he ‘unquestionably’ did, only it was
a ‘Human Endogenous Retrovirus’. And to lead Duesberg to testify, in
line with his claim in his famous
1987 Cancer Research paper,
that both the Perth Group and de Harven are wrong in that Montagnier
most certainly did achieve the ‘isolation in 1983 of a retrovirus … HIV’
from his human subject. So that the AIDS dissident expert witnesses walk
out of court covered in each other’s eggs. The case a mess on the floor.
addition, this amounts to the imposition of a new dogma, which I will
not support. I have even seen some more radical supporters of “HIV
Existence is the only issue” want to force Dr. Duesberg and others to
recant. That is not only distasteful from a human perspective given what
Peter has contributed to the movement and the sacrifices he has made but
it would be to behave in exactly the same way that the establishment
currently does against all of us.
Crowe persistently falsely characterize agitation by supporters of the
Perth Group’s appeal for a debate with Duesberg – cladding his
opposition to it with irrelevant mediaeval religious allusions in order
to put it down it as ‘distasteful’ and inhumane. And because Duesberg
has ‘made ... sacrifices’ (he’s certainly been punished), Crowe
considers that his basic scientific errors – incalculably
counterproductive in the resolution of the infectious AIDS myth – should
not only not stand unchallenged but should be propounded too, even
though he knows that they are completely, fundamentally wrong.
Crowe’s abysmal thinking on this score
had been already laid out in his response to Sadun Kal’s immediate
identification of this immense impediment to progress against the AIDS
orthodoxy that Duesberg and his small iron ring of Rethinking AIDS group
protectors pose. On 17 March 2008, in a monument to his mendacity, his
disingenuousness, his contemptible pusillanimity and general mediocrity,
Crowe replied to his letter to the Rethinking AIDS group:
I disagree with Dr. Duesberg on the
issue of the existence/purification/isolation of HIV. However, I see him
as a great hero on all other issues. Strategically, I think you need to
ask yourself just what you will accomplish by tearing the dissident
movement apart over whether we should tear Duesberg apart. First of all,
I’m not going to join in that blood sport, and apart from being a waste
of energy, I’m wondering just how you think Duesberg is stopping people
from questioning the existence of HIV? If not, just how important is it
to divert your attention from the external threat, AID$ Inc., and turn
your guns on your own movement?
And, on 30 May 2008, when Kal
This is my last email to you because of the
nature of your communications. I think you are being incredibly
arrogant. You’d be satisfied if “everybody” acknowledges that something
is amiss with Mr. Duesberg’s attitude. And you “personally can’t see why
he should still be taken seriously as a HIV scientist” (ironic since you
don’t believe HIV exists). This, despite his massive contribution in the
form of books, journal articles, presentations, talks, and huge
quantities of time, over the past 20 years. And a contribution that
continues to this very day, if you would only pay a little bit of
A ‘huge ... contribution’ to entrenching the
misconception that there is a virus in the world called ‘HIV’ and to
setting back the Perth Group’s observation that there isn’t. The
stupidity speaks for itself.
In his mail to Hart, Crowe continued:
disagreements that the Perth Group have with David Crowe are strategic,
having little to do with the existence of HIV. David does not agree that
[the] RA 2009 [conference]
would be successful if the existence of HIV was the only issue. David
does not believe that court cases can be successful if they are based
solely on the existence of HIV.
justifying his refusal of the Perth Group’s request to convene a debate
between Duesberg and themselves on the ‘existence of HIV’ Crowe falsely
implied they’d stipulated this should be the ‘only issue’ on his
conference agenda; they hadn’t. And to justify his fatal interference in
the Parenzee case by introducing Duesberg’s harmless passenger virus
line to contradict their evidence, Crowe falsely misrepresented the
Perth Group’s forensic strategy in the case in the same way. It wasn’t
‘based solely on the existence of HIV’; both in their affidavit and in
oral testimony they dealt with the antibody tests and sexual
transmission as well. But it was certainly ‘based’ on the fact that
there is no proof ‘HIV’ exists. What Crowe meant was that in his opinion
the Perth Group’s strategy of basing the defence on this pivotal,
crucial, decisive fact cannot be ‘successful’, it’s an unsuccessful
strategy to follow. It’s wrong. The Perth Group are wrong. Their science
is all very well in theory but it must be kept out of court.
In a mail to
Claus Jensen on 8 December 2009 Crowe was explicit about this. He gave
his reason for considering the Perth Group wrong in wanting Gallo
cross-examined on the isolation question and compelled to concede that
‘HIV’ has not been purified and thereby shown to exist. What he told
Jensen explained why he went so far as to
secretly formulate Borick’s questions
for him to make sure he avoided raising and pressing the pivotal
isolation issue with which Gallo could have been floored:
some danger in trying to get a hostile witness to admit that HIV has
never been purified, and that this means therefore that HIV’s existence
is purely hypothetical. When I’ve tried anything like this everyone
immediately jumps to, “Well, what were all those people dying from in
on Crowe’s cretinous assertions to some associates:
His line, ‘I see
some danger’, captures it all.
completely clueless about the nature of cross-examination in court as
opposed to a chat over lunch with his business acquaintances.
The lunch mate
can change the subject, get up and go.
The witness can
be grilled until he’s sobbing.
The one is free
to move as he likes, the other is stuck at the end of an alley and has
to deal with every bullet fired at him.
He can’t even
shut up, or you get the judge to admonish him: Answer the
As Eleni has
said to me, the ‘AIDS expert’ can be ‘forced’; he’ll admit there’s been
no purification ‘when forced’ in the witness stand, because presented
with the evidence he can’t do otherwise.
This is the
fundamental difference between chatting about HIV-AIDS and litigating
about it that eludes Crowe.
And, I ought
to have added, a witness under cross-examination must answer all
questions put to him; unless to ask for clarification, he may not avoid
answering them by putting questions to counsel of his own.
This is the
trouble with businessmen mistaking themselves for lawyers and then
acting on their ignorance.
In his mail to Crowe, Hart (and I) put
All the Aids experts agree
purification is necessary.
replied the cell phone businessman running the Rethinking AIDS group:
No. This is certainly not true of
the mainstream. They simply don’t talk
about purification. There are only very rare instances of this among the
mainstream. Generally they will simply claim that HIV is fragile and
purification is impossible, which implies strongly that they don’t
believe purification is necessary.
case exposed Crowe’s persistent, stupendous ignorance on this critical
point, because all the ‘mainstream’ experts, Gallo included, had been
unanimous with the Perth Group that purification is essential to proving
the existence of a virus. And Crowe bought the transcripts of the
‘mainstream’ experts’ evidence, Gallo’s included, so he could have seen
In the light of which, who would
disagree with Crowe’s observation to
not an issue of authority. It’s
an issue of knowledge. The world has a bigger problem with people
spouting opinions on things they are not actually all that knowledgeable
exemplified by his clueless
grounds of appeal to the Criminal
Appeal Court which he drew for Parenzee’s counsel Borick, after blowing
the application for leave to appeal. And moreover by his
the potent oxidative quality of semen.
On 1 October
2009 Crowe wrote to Jensen again about the failure of the Parenzee case
that he’d wrecked:
involved in the trial in various capacities shared their observations
and thoughts I am sure that new strategies would emerge.
This is to
say, if Crowe and others ‘involved in the trial’ such as the Perth Group
only had a chat about it they would likely come up with ‘new strategies’
better than the Perth Group’s bullet-to-the-heart strategy of showing
that there’s no proof that ‘HIV’ at the centre of the case exists, ‘new
strategies’ more effective than the Perth Group’s strategy of gunning at
the one point the orthodoxy cannot defend, as their evidence in the
Parenzee case tested under cross-examination confirmed.
opinion the contention that ‘HIV’ has been proved to exist but is
harmless, as against the contention that ‘HIV’ has never been proved to
exist, are not fundamentally and radically contradictory, opposing and
mutually destructive approaches to take at trial. No, he opined to Sadun
Kal on 27 May 2008, there are only ‘small differences’ between them. And
‘we should not magnify’ them, he told de Harven the next day. Why, he
explained to Kal,
difference between a virus that does not exist and between one that
exists, but only in small quantities and that is anyway not pathogenic,
is not that great.
This is why
Crowe’s advice in litigation, how to win a case, is to lead evidence
that ‘HIV’ has in fact been proved to exist right after evidence that it
hasn’t. And also, after evidence that ‘HIV’ hasn’t been proved to exist
has been led, proceed to cross-examine the conventional experts on the
premise that it has been proved to exist. Just as long as we have a
‘common goal’, Crowe reckons, that’ll be enough to win the judge – even
if Perth Group, Duesberg and de Harven are against kicking the ball in
different directions, the Perth Group forwards, de Harven sideways, and
Duesberg backwards into our own net.
self-imagined legal expert substituting for Canadian barrister Chris
Black at his RA2009 conference, Crowe presumably delivered a lecture on
how to win a case this way.
Another thing. In an email to Jim Wolfe
on 3 December 2006 Crowe alleged:
The court has heard from both Val
Turner and Eleni Eleopulos. From comments the judge made the lawyer is
concerned that the judge will not accept Eleni as an expert witness,
likely on the basis that she is neither an MD not a PhD and because she
is a physicist not a profession directly related (in the judge’s
opinion) to HIV/AIDS.
In truth, ‘the judge’ never made any
such ‘comments’ expressing such an ‘opinion’ either during their
testimony or cross-examination (he did so only in his judgment, after
Borick had himself implicitly repudiated her evidence and expertise, on
Crowe’s advice, by taking up Duesberg’s harmless virus line in his
further conduct of the appeal, both in the hearing and in the next
rounds before the Criminal Appeal Board). On the contrary, in an email
on 22 December 2006, copied to Crowe, English solicitor Clifford Miller
quoted ‘the lawyer’ Borick stating:
In my opinion the Judge appears to
accept Eleni’s expertise.
Crowe’s claim to Wolfe was a blatant
lie. It was a blatant lie told to justify his attempt to involve his
Rethinking AIDS group scientists Duesberg and de Harven in the case to
contradict and discredit Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s evidence on the key,
pivotal isolation question, just when the case was going well.
Even as he pretended to Wolfe in the
One of the things I’ve been trying
to do is get some affidavits from other scientists who will support
Eleni’s expertise to provide expert opinions attesting to the expertise
of Eleni [sic].
This was untrue: he took an affidavit
from de Harven, not ‘attesting to the expertise of Eleni’, but
contradicting her, and from others he absurdly claims not to remember.
But pointing out his stupidity, his
dishonesty and his disastrous incompetence, he whined to Jonathan
Campbell on 18 and 22 August 2009, was
damage … to the movement as a whole.
[It was] pursuing a course that is
strategically, factually and morally wrong.
mind the Perth Group, Crowe told Barnes in his September 2009 email:
to move forwards and hope that they eventually realize that they need to
rejoin the main thrust of AIDS dissent.
Group need only to wake up and appreciate what they’re missing, and to
fall in line with the ‘mainstream’ Rethinking AIDS group, the ‘main
thrust of AIDS dissent’ driven by Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick, Henry
Bauer, Helen Lauer, Roberto Giraldo, Bob Leppo, Gordon Stewart, Frank
Lusardi, Claus Koehnlein, Charles Geshekter, Christian Fiala and Etienne
de Harven, all led by the cellphone businessman David Crowe.
The Unbelievable Mediocrity of David Crowe:
Why Rethinking AIDS has the president it deserves
2. On 28
April 2010, apparently in reaction to the revelations contained in this
critique, Crowe emailed ‘more than 350 people’ as president of his
Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society (a society of one-member, him) asking
them for their money, and to his Rethinking AIDS group too, slipping in
the assertion –
(disclosure, I’m also the unpaid president of that organization)
– contradicting the
his Rethinking AIDS group he drew:
of Directors will include three paid Officers, elected by the Board,
namely: one President, one Treasurer, and one Webmaster.
It may be true that Crowe is unable to
draw a salary from his Rethinking AIDS group’s funds at the moment,
because they’re finished. On 14 March 2010 he said the RA2009 conference
‘stretched us to our financial limits’, which is to say he’d spent all
the money Leppo gave him on his Rethinking AIDS conference. Hence his
call for donations, so the ‘President’ of the Rethinking AIDS group can
get ‘paid’ as an ‘Officer’ as his ‘bylaws’ provide.
3. In a post on the
Times Higher Education blog on 7
May 2010 Crowe was back to propounding Duesberg’s harmless, rare virus
scientific literature shows that the evidence for pathogenicity of HIV
is weak ... Literature shows that there is either hardly any HIV present
in people with AIDS or none at all. Don’t believe me, read the science
[links to his website http://aras.ab.ca].
In fact the best ‘scientific
literature’ on the subject of ‘HIV’, from the Perth Group, ‘shows’ ‘HIV’
doesn’t exist on the available evidence. But Crowe won’t say so. No
‘HIV’ in inverted commas for him.
More of his bullied schoolboy mentality
spilled out in his absurdly inapposite and histrionic characterization
of peer review as a censorship tool:
The great thing about peer review is that it
is such an effective tool to beat your critics to a pulp with, and the
blood is so easy to wash off.