How David Crowe contrived to ensure that the scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident movement, the Perth Group, would not attend his Rethinking AIDS conference in Oakland, California, in November 2009

With reflections on the Parenzee case

Anthony Brink


Some time in 2008 David Crowe figured it would be swell if he and his Rethinking AIDS board and their followers could have a weekend jamboree to get to know one another. As board member David Rasnick explained in an email to Val Turner of the Perth Group on 3 July 2009, the meeting they were arranging was to be a social rather than a scientific one:

I am looking forward to the November conference because of the incredible, heroic, courageous, and fiercely independent people who will be there. This gathering is far more important than the program. The program is merely a vehicle to bring people together.

RA board member Henry Bauer confirmed in a post to the HIVAIDSPARADIGM forum on 20 August:

The chief benefit will be the personal contacts. Possible publicity in the public media would be a nice bonus. The actual talks, and who gives them, are not the most important thing.

Indeed, this was the gist of Crowe's conference report: there were 'floods of healing tears' and 'lots of time for unstructured mingling' and 'talking and hugging' and a 'banquet on Saturday evening where people could decide which VIP to sit with' and 'lively conversations' and 'new friends' and so much 'joy'. This was the point of it all for the 'President, Rethinking AIDS'. This is what turned him on.

Bauer too, his report was full of

tears of empathy shed so freely and appropriately. ... an occasion where intellect, emotion, and spirit were so much in harmony. ... the blessing of having participated in this unforgettable bit of human history. RA2009 was a success not just from a scientific or intellectual point of view but also in its demonstration of deeply shared commitment and in the exhilaration felt at such unstinted commonality of purpose among so large a contingent of people representing the full spectrum of humankind.

All told, the conference amounted to a kind of John and Yoko bed-in, as Sabine Kalitzkus put it after reading Crowe's report, only without the media publicity Bauer craved, because it went completely ignoredScientific progress was the last thing Crowe and his RA board members had in mind. Consequently, nothing of substance proceeded from it but this was the idea.

In an advertisement on YouTube, the conference was plugged as a 'scientific conference', promising:

An international list of scientists, doctors, HIV-positive people, and journalists will explain the reasons for the failures of the AIDS industry.

Of course none of them did. This was because 'the AIDS industry' hasn't been a 'failure' at all, it's been a multibillion dollar runaway success.

The conference represents an international grassroots effort to bring scientific freedom and integrity to AIDS discourse. It will help people protect themselves against legal assaults based on the flawed contagious/HIV hypothesis.

It wasn't a 'grassroots effort' as claimed either. Apart from Crowe, a cell phone businessman, the conference drivers were Rasnick and Bauer, both professional chemists, and both partisans of Peter Duesberg's harmless passenger virus line, who'd co-authored his latest paper propounding it in June 2009.

Whether they made any 'effort to bring scientific freedom and integrity to AIDS discourse', or whether, contrariwise, the 'effort' they made was to limit 'AIDS discourse', restrict 'scientific freedom' and display a deplorable absence of 'integrity' as they went about it, is the subject of this paper.

The one complete defence to 'legal assaults based on the flawed contagious/HIV hypothesis' the Perth Group's demonstrable scientific observation, common cause even among the AIDS experts, that 'HIV' has never been isolated and thereby proved to exist was kept from any possible 'people' facing such 'legal assaults' who were attracted to the conference by the YouTube ad. (Etienne De Harven's uncredited, mangled, corrupted version of the Perth Group's missing virus science, presented at the conference obviously doesn't count.)

It will reach out to HIV-antibody-positive people seeking to break free from the devastating and dehumanizing chains of HIV.

There it was: RA's basic de facto scientific position, after Duesberg: you can break free from 'HIV'. Even if you have antibodies to 'HIV'. This is because although you have 'HIV' and you also have antibodies to 'HIV' you don't have to be 'devastated' and 'dehumanized' by their 'chains' around you, because 'HIV' is a harmless virus, so being 'HIV-antibody-positive' is nothing to worry about.

Crowe evidently wrote the copy for the feeble video ad; it's how he talks, insincerely, like a town-hall politician, saying anything to sound appealing.

Having got wind of plans to hold a conference, Turner asked Crowe about it. On 22 February 2009 Crowe replied:

I have sent you an invitation to join the planning team for a conference tentatively entitled "Rethinking AIDS 2009" to be held in early November in the San Francisco area.

This conference will be designed to provide focused critiques of the HIV=AIDS dogma in a fashion that is both scholarly and open to both scientist and layman. I can't say what will be on the agenda, but I can imagine sessions to discuss HIV test accuracy, legal aspects of an HIV diagnosis, human rights aspects and so on. Formats can include individual speakers, panel discussions, and open discussions with a moderator.

I can't say more because planning will be the job of the discussion group I just invited you to. Please join if and only if you have the time and energy to work on the planning between now and November.

This could be very exciting and motivating. Your participation will help ensure that your perspective is included.

I think that the group may need to break down later into a group to discuss logistics and a group to plan the program, but for preliminary discussions I think one group is good.

If you join, please post a brief message identifying yourself, and what you think a conference like this could encompass. If you would be willing to act as a coordinator for this group, you can also mention that.

Important issues outside of defining a program and the basic logistics are publicity and fund raising (the conference should be self-sufficient or, better yet, raise a modest amount of money for Rethinking AIDS).

Please feel free to suggest the names of other people who might be assets for this planning committee.

If this conference is successful we will probably immediately start planning the next, in a different part of the world, perhaps Europe.

It's relevant to know the background to Crowe's 'invitation' to Turner that he join the conference 'planning committee' for his 'very exciting and motivating' conference.

As the principal mover behind the new RA organization he was forming in 2005, Crowe had excluded the members of the Perth Group from his 'board'; and when these leading scientists of the AIDS dissident movement heard about this and requested representation the following year, Crowe turned them down on the basis that this would prejudice RA board member Peter Duesberg (see p.9), whose scientific claims they had refuted. Crowe further refused the Perth Group space on his RA website (search: 'priority') to publish a summary of their work. And acting behind the scenes, he fatally undermined the historical opportunity the Perth Group had been long waiting for to demonstrate in a judicial forum (the Parenzee case) that 'HIV' has never been shown to exist.

Having determinedly repressed the Perth Group and the ventilation of their science at every opportunity, President Crowe was now imperiously deigning to invite one of its members to join a 'planning committee' – run, it would shortly emerge, by Rasnick, Duesberg's scientific sidekick and long-time champion of his 'HIV is a harmless passenger virus' story .

Crowe's invitation to Turner to 'join' the 'planning committee' and plan the RA conference for him was conditional on being 'if and only if you have the time and energy to work on the planning between now and November'.

This is to say, Crowe wasn't going to make the necessary 'time and energy' sacrifices 'to work on the planning' himself; no, he was suggesting that Turner do the 'work' for him, notwithstanding that Crowe had earlier decided that Turner wasn't a suitable person to serve on the RA board. But if Turner couldn't spare the 'time and energy' to organize his conference for him, then Crowe couldn't 'help' it if the Perth Group's 'perspective' wasn't 'included'.

All this was characteristically sleazy and manipulative Crowe-speak, from one side of his mouth smooth, from the other threatening, like a hood calling for protection money.

Naturally for a Duesberg-science promoting organization, Duesberg's wife Siggi was appointed conference secretary, and the venue picked for it was a fancy hotel in Duesberg's and Rasnick's backyard in San Francisco. Nice and convenient for them. Nearly everyone else attending would be put to the cost in time and cash of flying thousands of kilometres to do so.

Nonetheless, Turner replied on 27 January, copying many prominent AIDS dissidents in to alert them to the burning point he was making:

If this conference can provide a forum wherein Peter and Eleni could discuss their scientific issues, then we would welcome this opportunity.

It would be a framework to unify the various philosophies of the dissident movement and present a common front to the AIDS establishment. We are certainly prepared to come with an open mind.

Do you think this can be achieved?

Crowe did not respond to Turner saying: This is huge. This is historic. Let me stop the bus. Hang on, I'm going to call Rasnick up and tell him, Listen Dave, you're not going to like this, but Val has just conveyed Eleni's wish that she and Peter finally thrash out their differences at the conference over whether HIV has been shown to exist or not. This is obviously extraordinarily important for the AIDS dissident movement. It's high time we resolved the scientific differences that have hampered us right from the start, and have resulted in risibly contradictory claims being made about why the HIV theory of AIDS is unsound, which have fundamentally compromised our cause. I have to tell you, though, that I read some of Eleni's work about ten years ago, including her Continuum debate with Peter in 1996-7, as well as Peter's correspondence with Michael Nitsche in 1998-9, and it's quite obvious that Peter's position on HIV is indefensible. He's going to come off looking both laughably incompetent as a scientist and worse, he may even come off looking a damned discreditable person. A hall full of people is going to be watching him exposed before them, stuttering and stammering without anything intelligent to say. Can you just imagine it?! If newspaper journalists are there as we expect, Seth Kalichman too, this is going to finish Peter off completely. He's going to end up totally discredited. I'm sorry to say, Dave, but you're going to be left looking like a moron too, since everybody knows you uncritically hang on and echo Peter's every word, not actually knowing what the hell's going on. So it's going to be rough for you, but unfortunately the preservation of your and Peter's reputations as AIDS dissident scientists will have to take second place to the interests of humanity and to the best science available to our movement, which is to say to the public interest and the known truth; and to the extent that you and Peter have built your careers on scientific claims that we all know are false, and have been tapping Bob Leppo for a lot of money to promote those false claims of yours, you are going to have to take a tumble. Never mind all the twee, heard-it-all-before little speeches that we've got lined up in place of a presentation on the hardcore, radical trouble with the HIV theory of AIDS, I've decided to go with the Perth Group's proposal and see to it that a real scientific conference takes place. Obviously it's a waste of time asking you to do it, since you have so much invested personally, financially and professionally in Peter's false passenger virus line, so just leave it to me: I'll ask Peter if he'll participate in an open scientific debate with Eleni. All indications from his past disgracefully unscientific behaviour are that he'll refuse, but I'll give it a try anyway. I believe it's appropriate that the conference we're advertising to the public as scientific should indeed be a scientific conference. It's only appropriate. This is a tremendous opportunity, you have to agree.

Of course that's not how Crowe responded; instead he disingenuously rejected Turner's direct and honest proposal of a discussion between Peter and Eleni, with a view to accomplishing the critically important objectives Turner had stated, by insisting that all he was offering him was a job on the conference 'organizing committee', and that he put his proposal for a debate on the existence of 'HIV' to this committee – dissimulating all the while that it was uncertain whether Eleni wanted it to take place, and playing his little power games all the way:

You are welcome to join the organizing committee and propose a debate like this for the program. Perhaps you could first check with Eleni and Peter to ensure they would be both willing to participate.

Turner cut the crap:

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Since you are the organiser I am asking you to do the organising.

Crowe responded petulantly, and dishonestly as usual:

I asked you to get involved in organizing. I am not the organizer. That would imply that I alone am going to organize the logistics, the program, the fundraising and every other aspect. I am solely the catalyst and would prefer that people who have opinions about how the conference should be run should get involved.

Luckily, there already are several people who have agreed to help. If you are not willing to help organize or at least do the legwork to ensure that your proposal is a possibility (i.e. contacting the parties, ensuring they will be present at the conference, and ensuring that they are willing to participate) then please don't be surprised if your idea is not pursued.

Clearly Turner had not implied that Crowe was acting entirely 'alone' in setting up the conference; and Crowe's suggestion to this effect was deliberately false in his familiar crooked fashion of twisting what people say and mean to avoid answering them honestly and directly.

Claiming to be 'solely the catalyst' and 'not the organizer', Crowe was pretending not to be 'involved in organizing' and not to be among those 'people who have opinions about how the conference should be run'. In other words as president of RA he was claiming to have nothing to do with organizing the conference whatsoever, to the extent that he didn't even 'have opinions about how the conference should be run'. All these statements were transparent lies, which Crowe would himself contradict later on. In fact he was centrally involved in organizing the conference, and obviously so.

And he certainly had strong 'opinions about how the conference should be run':

I can imagine sessions to discuss HIV test accuracy, legal aspects of an HIV diagnosis, human rights aspects and so on.

But of course no 'sessions to discuss' the fundamental 'HIV' isolation question. On no account did Crowe want a debate between Peter and Eleni on the issue of whether 'HIV' has been proved to exist, the debate Peter has assiduously avoided having with her ever since her explosion of his claim to the Continuum Award. Because obviously the implications of seeing RA's top 'VIP' scientist Peter gunned down by Eleni in open debate at the conference, and coming off as a scientific incompetent, right in front of his financial sponsor Bob Leppo (RA's too), were unthinkable for Crowe as a petty political operator, more interested in playing party boss than in decisively and radically resolving the scientific controversy concerning the 'HIV' theory of AIDS and what is fundamentally wrong with it.

In sum, the Perth Group had made plain to Crowe that they would be pleased to attend the conference provided it would be productive in addressing the root issue dividing the AIDS dissident movement, and to this end they were asking him as the person in charge of his RA organization to facilitate a pivotal debate.

Digging in behind the manifestly false pretence that it was not up to him to arrange such a thing, Crowe refused. He was not even going to mention the 'idea' to Duesberg; Turner either had to kow-tow to him as 'President' of RA and accept his requirement that he join the 'planning committee' and propose the debate to it, or he could jump in the creek.

It bears repeating here that thanks to Crowe there was 'no support' at the RA board meeting of June 2006 for the Perth Group's simple plea that a summary of their work be posted on the RA website – per paragraph 6.d of the minutes. (As mentioned, Crowe had rejected the document for spurious reasons.) And it was against this history that Crowe was telling Turner to go cap in hand to a subcommittee of the selfsame RA board to propose a debate threatening to totally discredit the RA board's most prominent scientists, Duesberg and Rasnick – and Henry Bauer too, who'd just undersigned their most recent 'passenger virus' paper in June 2009.

Bauer supported Crowe's refusal to arrange, even moot, a debate, claiming falsely in his mail of 20 August:

As I've said before, I was privy to early discussions about the 2009 conference in which the Perth Group was invited to be part of an organizing committee. They made inappropriate demands that would have prejudged what the committee would decide.

As if the Perth Group had made any demands at all. As if their proposal of a debate was 'inappropriate'. As if there was any prospect that presented with the proposal 'the committee would decide' it positively. As if the proposal was somehow undemocratic. As if RA was in any event a democratic organization, as opposed to a small undemocratic, self-selecting, self-serving exclusive clique pretending to represent the international AIDS dissident community. (A democratic, representative organization would have conducted a referendum of active AIDS dissidents on their desire to see such a vital debate held.)

Rasnick made as much clear in an email on 27 July 2009:

The board of Rethinking AIDS has the responsibility and authority to speak for RA officially, which includes organizing the conference and its program. Non-board members are welcome to make suggestions and share their opinions but they have no right or authority to make demands of the board.


Individuals invited to become board members have a history of countering the nonsense of AIDS Inc. They are chosen because of their respectful, levelheaded, professional criticism of AIDS Inc.

(This explains why the Perth Group hadn't been invited 'to become board members': in Rasnick's view they have no 'history of countering the nonsense of AIDS Inc' with 'respectful, levelheaded, professional criticism'.)

Crowe full well appreciated that the Perth Group would consequently not be attending his pointless conference – just as the Perth Group appreciated that Crowe would not 'pursue' their 'idea' of a debate between themselves and Duesberg concerning their fundamental scientific disagreement, the dispute stymieing the progress of the AIDS dissident movement and the resolution of 'AIDS'.

As 'chairman of the program committee', Rasnick would have been party to the 'early discussions' Bauer mentioned, and therefore aware of the Perth Group's position, namely that an AIDS dissident conference avoiding the crucial issue of whether 'HIV' exists – the issue confounding the dissidents' ability to 'present a common front to the AIDS establishment' – would be fruitless from a scientific and political viewpoint; it would be little more than a social gathering.

Nonetheless, anticipating she wouldn't attend for this reason, Rasnick mailed Perth Group leader Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos via Turner on 19 April:

Rethinking AIDS (the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis) is planning a conference to be held in Oakland, CA, November 6-8, 2009.

I am chairman of the program committee. I would like to invite you to give a talk on the HIV tests (see attached draft program).

The conference has limited funding so the speakers will have to pay for their own travel and accommodations. However, the registration fee will be waived.

The conference will be held at the Waterfront Plaza Hotel in Jack London Square in Oakland, CA. Please see the conference website for additional information:

Sigrid Duesberg is the conference manager and coordinator. She is getting special room rates for attendees. For more information, please email her [...]

If you are able to accept our invitation to participate under these conditions, please let me know as soon as you can. We ask for a one paragraph synopsis or abstract of your talk to be included in the program.

Decades of intelligent analysis of the various issues of AIDS make you an ideal contributor to the conference.

I hope to see you in November.

Rasnick's impudent and offensive claim that the 'Rethinking AIDS' organization was 'the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis' – which Papadopulos-Eleopulos had co-founded in 1991, and had even lent the group its name – was false (as mentioned above, when forming Rethinking AIDS in 2005, Crowe didn't invite the Perth Group to join it, and when they discovered his moves refused them representation on it).

Rasnick didn't mention that RA was paying the hotel bills of its board members (so de Harven informed me). There was no shortage of 'funding' for them; it was the other 'speakers' such as Papadopulos-Eleopulos who would 'have to pay for their own accommodations'.

Here was Rasnick – Duesberg's closest ally ignorantly opposed to the Perth Group on the 'HIV' isolation question and ignorantly opposed to the Perth Group on the AZT triphosphorylation question – announcing himself as chairman of the conference 'program committee' with the power to select the speakers and their topics and to shut out scientific and political trouble-makers for him and Duesberg and their funding from RA board member Bob Leppo.

(Although he opined that the Perth Group's 'analysis of the various issues of AIDS' over the 'decades', long before he arrived on the scene, were 'intelligent', they were clearly too 'intelligent' for him to understand, because he evidently didn't understand them, not being 'intelligent' enough.)

Well aware that the unresolved issue dividing and hamstringing the AIDS dissident movement was the 'HIV' isolation question, and just as concerned as Duesberg that it should not be raised, Rasnick sought to exclude it from the conference program by inviting Papadopulos-Eleopulos to speak only about 'HIV tests' and why they aren't reliable. Rasnick was formally inviting the most important, rigorous and radical AIDS dissident scientist to fly all the way over from Perth and stay in an expensive hotel at her own cost to speak only to the safe, soft side-issue that he'd stipulated as the subject of her presentation. And this was after she'd already conveyed that unless a debate with Duesberg could be facilitated on the 'HIV' isolation question, she wouldn't be flying over to attend. The 'conditions' Rasnick had set for Papadopulos-Eleopulos to 'participate' were manifestly unacceptable to her, and Rasnick intended them to be so.

This gave Rasnick his opening to claim in an email to Georg von Wintzingerode on 24 November:

I personally invited Eleni last April to give a talk at RA2009. She declined.

The negative sense Rasnick meant to convey was picked up by Clark Baker and spelt out in an email to Claus Jensen on 20 January 2010:

PG [the Perth Group] was invited to Oakland and refused to attend. 

In their statement dissociating from RA on 18 September 2009, the Perth Group recounted:

The only member "of the so called Perth Group" invited to the conference was Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos who was asked by David Rasnick to talk on the antibody tests. We made it clear even before the invitation the only way we could justify the time and expense demanded by our participation was to have a debate with Peter Duesberg regarding our scientific differences. Since David Crowe ruled this out, Eleni regrettably declined the invitation and proposed Anthony Brink to present our views on the "HIV" isolation problem on our behalf, as he ably did in May 2008 at the All Russia Parents Assembly AIDS dissident conference held in Ekaterinburg. Celia Farber and Crowe claim our proposal of Anthony was rejected because they wanted "to have the pre-eminent expert", "the highest scientific authority on each matter", address each topic. All "perfectly reasonable". Now it appears there will be talks on "HIV" isolation and the speakers will be Etienne de Harven and Crowe.

A couple of weeks after the conference, on 26 November, Celia Farber wrote to me, copying several other dissidents:

I am not a member of RA, and had no influence in the planning of this conference. I called David Rasnick some months back because I wished to hear from him directly what the facts were, according to him, and he explained that RA had decided it wanted the pre-eminent scientist on each subject to speak on said subject. …

At a later date, I called David again, mid-war, and implored that RA might try again to find a way, any way whatsoever, to include Perth Group at the conference. David expressed a shared wish that this manifest, and said that he had invited Val, since Eleni had declined. He was not hopeful that Val would accept.

This was a lie. Rasnick never 'invited Val, since Eleni had declined' to address the conference. It was accordingly not possible that 'He was not hopeful that Val would accept.' Both statements were pure invention. (Who the liar in the piece was, Rasnick or Farber, remains to be determined.)

Crowe's animus towards the Perth Group – long pre-dating his suggestion that Turner assist in organizing his conference for him, and his dismissal of his request to facilitate a Duesberg/Perth Group debate – emerged in his reply to Martin Barnes in September 2009, several days after the Perth Group had announced their dissociation from him and his RA group.

Crowe: If the Perth Group showed a desire to work cooperatively with other members of the RA board they would have been on the board long ago. But for years now, particularly since 2006, they have continuously attacked one board member after another. [A fabrication.]

Barnes: In my experience, if someone attacks you, they care about you and respect you. It is the opposite of being ignored.

Crowe: If they cared about me they would consult me before publishing claims about me or other RA board members that prove to be false or unprovable (e.g. speculation about a state of mind at a particular time).

Barnes: It is harder for us to be effective if this political split continues!

Crowe: Yes. I have specifically asked Val, Eleni (via Val) and Anthony Brink for a private phone conversation and have been ignored or denied in every case. Every response I have written has been ignored, denied and belittled either with scorn or, in the case of Brink, with obscenities. [Search on 'sack of shit'. It is to be hoped that one day Crowe will learn the difference between obscenity and polemical vulgarity.]

Barnes: I think Peter should fly down to Perth and hang out with them for a month until a coherent position is arrived at and published.

Crowe: This is not Peter's responsibility, it is theirs. They have imagined the split and they have brought it to fruition. At every opportunity where I have asked them to cooperate with us they have refused. Every time I have circulated something without including them they have cried foul even though when I ask them I do not get cooperation. We need to move forwards and hope that they eventually realize that they need to rejoin the main thrust of AIDS dissent. The problem with the use of sarcasm and belittlement as tools are that, once RA is out of the picture, they will turn on each other. You may have already seen this with Janine Roberts. It was fine when she was attacking me and RA but then she started to defend me in a relatively minor way and she was immediately set upon. Anthony Brink, Claus Jensen, Gene Semon and others will rip each others to shreds. And the Perth Group explicitly endorse this type of behaviour, at least on the part of Anthony Brink (who is by far the most vicious). I hope that gradually they will realize how childish, counterproductive and immature they are all being and rediscover that cooperation and respect are the only things that can move us forwards. I hope 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 addition, being correct in one area does not mean they are correct in all (which is the implication of the defenders of the Perth Group). Are they right that "AIDS is sexually acquired"? Are they right that exposure to semen is the cause of AIDS? If their viewpoints are imposed by force, will that mean that people need to agree with all their viewpoints and that dissent will not be tolerated?

The mail epitomized Crowe perfectly, displaying all the traits that have made him so despised by the scientifically literate AIDS dissident community: his flagrant lying, his inversion of the facts, his misleading exaggeration, his habitual disingenuity in argument, his low cunning, his logical disconnects, his generally dishonest use of language, his juvenile defensiveness, his inability to distinguish between a personal attack and due criticism, his ludicrous self-opinion and presumptuousness, his anodyne personality, his debasement and enfeeblement of AIDS dissident discourse with epicene emotiveness and false assertions, his banality, his egotism, his megalomania, his self-concept of the talented, virtuous, righteous man unjustly wounded and unfairly rejected, the wise father-figure spurned by his mindlessly squabbling charges, his wilful blind-eye ignorance and porcine stupidity concerning the oxidative nature of semen, and his counter-subversive moderation and tame, unthreatening opposition to the AIDS orthodoxy specifically, and the American empire generally.

Most significantly, Crowe alluded to the crucial issue which – thanks to his clueless maladroitness as self-billed 'President' of the international AIDS dissident community – finally ruptured it into two irreconcilably opposed factions in September 2009: correct strategy in engagement with the AIDS orthodoxy – on one side the Perth Group and their supporters, aiming at the orthodoxy's Achilles' Heel: the missing virus problem; and on the other, Crowe and his RA group with their 'brilliant' strategic conception that one must avoid targeting the orthodoxy's Achilles' Heel and must rather aim one's arrow anywhere else, anywhere but at the one and only point at which the orthodoxy is defenceless.

This is because Crowe is convinced that he's much more intelligent than other people are, and that other people can't be expected to understand the Perth Group's missing virus science like he can, since he thinks, as he's repeatedly said, that the simple truth of the matter – no virus has been proved to exist – is too complicated for other people to grasp, judges included, so it's better to tell them the lie that 'HIV' exists but is a harmless retrovirus, and that millions of people, especially Africans and gays, really are infected with it just like all the AIDS experts say, but never mind because it's harmless.

This is the 'practical' approach to take, Crowe thinks. But 'unfortunately' the Perth Group are just not 'practical' in his view, not 'practical' like him:

Practicality is, unfortunately, not a characteristic of all scientific dissidents.

That Crowe had the Perth Group and their supporters in mind when emailing this statement on 21 January 2009 (we need him to manage us, he reckons) is suggested by an earlier mail of his on 12 July 2008. Too stubborn, too stupid, and lacking the integrity and decency to acknowledge his enormous culpability for wrecking the Parenzee case, Crowe wrote:

Perhaps Val just thinks I'm an idiot and I unintentionally damaged the trial by my actions. But again, it's an open question whether my efforts were helpful or harmful. I certainly haven't seen an unbiased observer make a judgement on that, and Borick seemed grateful for the limited assistance I was able to give.

The 'assistance' Crowe 'was able to give' Borick included misdirecting him to ruin a priceless historical scientific opportunity. As Gene Semon put it to Crowe (predictably he didn't reply):

...why ['couldn't'] Gallo ... have been nailed on his "mass purification" testimony/lie by a lawyer who was properly prepared and didn't decide to waste his cross of Gallo on the so-called stolen virus? 

This is to say, with the chance to cross-examine Gallo on his failure to have purified 'HIV' and proved it to exist, Borick took Crowe's advice to rather accuse Gallo of having stolen the (non-existent) virus from Montagnier, thereby impressing on the judge that 'HIV' exists, contrary to the testimony given by the Perth Group, for obviously if it didn't exist it couldn't have been stolen. Which is another way of saying, it couldn't have been stolen if it didn't exist.

If Borick came to me for review of documents [cf. Crowe's previous, deceitfully understated claim: 'Kevin asked me for input on certain issues'] given that he had a direct line to the Perth Group, there must have been some reason. So perhaps the Perth Group should discuss things with him.

But they really might want to look in the mirror, because some of their behaviour was quite bizarre. For example, threatening to pull out of the trial if any other experts were called, lobbying the family to support them, and kyboshing Borick's plans.

To Crowe it was 'quite bizarre' for the Perth Group to insist that defence counsel Kevin Borick reject his interference in the case and that he stick with their carefully engineered defence strategy agreed with them at the outset of the case.

It was 'quite bizarre' for the Perth Group to insist that Borick disregard Crowe's claims to 'strategic brilliance', specifically his 'brilliant' 'practical' advice that Borick lead Duesberg and de Harven as expert witnesses right after them to contradict their evidence that 'HIV' has never been proved to exist and that Montagnier never found any 'retrovirus' in 1983 at all, be it a 'passenger virus' (per Duesberg) or a 'Human Endogenous Retrovirus' (per de Harven). So that at the end of the case, the judge would be sitting with three mutually destructive scientific arguments for the defence. 'Brilliant'!

Most 'bizarre' of all was the Perth Group's desperate attempt, unsuccessfully in the result, to prevent Crowe from fatally disrupting the trial strategy midway through the case, when by all accounts it was going very well. This was really 'quite bizarre ... behaviour', thought the forensic strategy genius of the AIDS dissident movement, who knows what's best for the AIDS dissidents generally, and how to conduct HIV-AIDS litigation particularly; why, the Perth Group had only to 'look in the mirror' to see 'quite' how 'bizarre' it was. And see also how they lack the 'characteristic' of 'practicality', unlike the outstandingly 'practical' president of Rethinking AIDS.

The Perth Group's 'quite bizarre ... behaviour' had the effect of 'kyboshing Borick's plans', Crowe said. Except that the truth of it was that when he commenced the case, Borick's 'plans' were never to lead contradictory expert evidence. The 'brilliant' 'plans' to introduce contradictory expert evidence in the middle of the case were Crowe's. Do you see how freely this despicable person spews his shameless lies?

The closest Crowe has ever got to acknowledging the havoc he caused was in an email on 25 September 2009, but even then it was couched in his usual waffle and obfuscation.

Claus Jensen had commented:

Not a single point was fully drilled into Gallo. That's why we need an Anthony Brink and not a Kevin Borick. Only in that case could we have known how much PG's strategy and (lack of) credentials would have amounted to. ... Could a powerful performance by somebody as well-informed and aggressive as Brink have overcome those odds?

To which Michael Geiger responded:

Claus, I think you are right on the money that Borick was completely insufficient. The only reason I myself can indulge in pulling any of Anthony's strings, is that he is just far enough out of pistol dueling and fist swinging range for me to get away with it.

Crowe weighed in:

We don't know that Borick was insufficient. We've never had a dispassionate postmortem of the trial, so we don't know why people did things and what the alternatives were. I'm sure everyone, including myself, could have done some things differently. But there's no proof that there was any strategy that would have worked, which I think requires a little humility from people who claim they can know the unknowable.

To this dull-witted slime-ball, Borick was unquestionably 'sufficient', seeing as he proceeded to brief him to appeal the dismissal of the Parenzee case along Duesberg lines (it failed). And he continued using Borick to advance the 'harmless virus' line in other litigation, knowing it to be scientific nonsense. On 12 August 2008 Crowe wrote Jensen about the Mzite case:

I am in communication with Borick via an intermediary, and he wants to be involved. This is hush hush for obvious reasons.

Hush hush from the Perth Group most of all, 'for obvious reasons'.

In his opinion that the Perth Group had no prospect of winning the case by demonstrating that 'HIV' has never been isolated and thereby proved to exist (which is why he persuaded Borick to change strategy and continue on the basis that 'HIV' indeed exists but is harmless), Crowe found a natural friend in AIDS orthodoxy Witchfinder-General John Moore. Who agreed on 28 September:

On this issue, I am with David Crowe, which he will acknowledge is a rare event. Mr Borick did the best he could in a situation that was impossible for him or any other professional lawyer. There was no possible way for Parenzee to win the case as there was no rational, scientific basis for the appeal against a conviction that was clearly legally sound and justified by the facts, scientific and otherwise. Judges and juries are not stupid, and they are not conned by the pseudoscience that was promoted by the Perth Group members, who were rightly castigated by the judge for their incompetence and unworthiness to serve as expert witnesses. That was no surprise at all, and nor was the verdict. AIDS denialists do not win legal cases because the law is based on reason and the facts. [...]

Jensen commented on the HIVAIDSPARADIGM forum the same day. Correcting Crowe's false claim that a 'dispassionate postmortem' had yet to be done, he pointed out that he had questioned Borick's professional acumen as soon as Crowe made the transcripts of the evidence available, and that

Among the many, many analyses done, David Crowe has published an early analysis by Board Member Henry Bauer on his own website which he now wants to claim is not sufficiently dispassionate either I suppose. ... As far as "unknowable" goes, Borick's performance and alternatives to it are hardly "unknowable" in any sense of that word ... since we have hundreds of transcript pages detailing it, and since there is some science and art to trial lawyering. What Crowe perhaps could say is that there is no published, professional analysis of Borick's performance and the Parenzee strategy. But that would require us to discount Anthony Brink and/or his analyses as wanting in objectivity, professionalism and detail.

Crowe answered on 1 October, providing a cameo of his dishonest mind at work:

A "dispassionate post-mortem" would require all the major parties to be present. That would include Eleni, Val, Kevin, myself and also others who were involved in the case such as Trudy, Paul and Kyle.

This is palpable nonsense; all the relevant facts are known, and Crowe has justified himself extensively. Having previously denied that he'd interfered in it, here Crowe declares himself to have been a 'major party ... involved in the case'.

There's nothing wrong with outside commentary, such as Henry Bauer's but it is not what I was referring to.

In his commentary Bauer implicitly supported Crowe's sabotage of the case by introducing the Duesberg 'harmless passenger virus' line:

...the Sulan decision underscores the need to identify exactly what is necessary to establish sufficient doubt about the HIV = AIDS dogma. In my opinion, to accomplish this it is not necessary to establish that HIV does not exist, it should suffice if one can establish that HIV is not sexually transmitted so efficiently that it could be responsible for the epidemics of AIDS claimed to be ravaging Africa now and those that ravaged within a few years several relatively isolated communities of fast-lane gay men in metropolitan areas of developed countries.

(Sadly, these were not the issues Judge Sulan had to determine, and had nothing to do with the case whatsoever.) In August 2009, in a notice on the RA website, Bauer and the rest of the RA board members expressly endorsed Crowe's disastrous intervention in the case (even though it had been specifically proscribed by resolution of the RA board at its June 2006 meeting).

In his reply to Jensen, Crowe continued his sickeningly stupid waffle:

The outcome of the trial under different circumstances is of course unknowable, so that would require some humility from the participants because nobody truly would know for certain that "if A then B would have happened". Even the best legal experts are just making educated guesses in many cases when, for example, predicting the verdict from a jury in a controversial or confusing case. However, if people involved in the trial in various capacities shared their observations and thoughts I am sure that new strategies would emerge.

The trial strategy was crystal clear: the Perth Group set out to demonstrate, and indeed did demonstrate, that 'HIV' has never been shown to exist. Crowe furtively prevailed on Borick to radically alter the trial strategy midway during the trial and persuaded him to henceforth proceed with the defence on the basis of Duesberg's diametrically opposing contention that 'HIV' exists but is harmless. Crowe's strategy pressed on Borick radically conflicting with the strategy on the basis of which the Perth Group had agreed to testify was based on his conviction that the judge would be more impressed by Duesberg's academic credentials than by the Perth Group's hard science, by aura over the facts. Crowe's disingenuous patter that 'new strategies would emerge' if the failure of the case was discussed 'dispassionately' (he means without criticizing his ruinous interference) is a not merely a devious distraction from his immense historical responsibility for having furtively disrupted the Perth Group's trial strategy, it reveals that Crowe remains convinced that the Perth Group's strategy of showing that there is no virus at the centre of the HIV-AIDS model is bad and that their science must never be presented in a court of law.

I vaguely remember you doing quote mining on the Parenzee transcripts, I am sure a few of the quotes are from you and I thank you for that.

In fact Crowe remembered quite clearly, not 'vaguely', but because of his pathological tendency to deceitfulness he finds it difficult to speak truthfully.

I have an email from you dated May 9, 2007 which states,

"I don't know what Borick (Perth?) is going to do or how he is going to do it. But if resources, scientific or economical are limited, he must know that there are a few of us who could help with all kinds of analysis. I don't know how well the last round was prepared or researched, but this time we should really try to get behind a couple of representatives and go for an organized no-ego team effort."

Exactly right. I wonder what has changed your mind since then. Weren't you then advocating "interference" in the trial?

Jensen had not changed his mind as Crowe sleazily insinuated, nor was he 'advocating' secret 'interference' and disruption of the defence strategy of the sort Crowe carried out; he had in mind to assist Borick stay on track with the Perth Group's trial strategy.

You also don't seem to realize that the transcripts in the trial, which many people have found useful, including the Perth Group, would not be public if it wasn't for the "interference" (i.e. fund-raising) of myself.

Here Crowe dishonestly misapplied the quoted word to his useful service in collecting money (he's good at that) to distract from his direct, fatal intrusion in the conduct of the case convinced that he knew better than the Perth Group concerning effective trial strategy. Note that Crowe refused to use the funds he'd raised to purchasing the most 'useful' transcripts of all, the transcripts of the Perth Group's evidence. Crowe evidently shares Moore's estimation that it was worthless.

Crowe's latest flash of forensic genius appeared in an exchange around the turn of the year. Mentioning the latest prosecution of an HIV-positive man for allegedly endangering his partner, Michael Geiger wrote on Christmas day:

I would love to see us dissidents get going on a plan to put together an action plan and perhaps a fund to obtain and educate lawyers to defend those hiv positives who stand accused of knowingly having sex.

Turner responded:

AR Brink?  Chris Black?  Already educated?

Not them, not in court, answered the top litigation expert of the AIDS dissident movement:

I think we need two kinds of lawyers in most of these cases. What you might call "Consulting Lawyers", people like Brink or Black. But we also need local lawyers who are accredited and know the local legal landscape. In almost all cases they will need education and support. It will be rare to find a lawyer who is already a dissident (but not unheard of). But many lawyers can come up to speed quite quickly on the basics.

'People like Brink or Black' should merely be consulted, Crowe reckoned, to provide 'education and support' to 'local lawyers'. To educate them on the Perth Group's science concerning the missing virus problem and to educate them on correct trial strategy accordingly. To give them a crash course in molecular biology and tell them how to run their case. But as the most knowledgeable lawyers in the world on 'HIV', 'Brink or Black' shouldn't seek ad hoc accreditation to lead the Perth Group's evidence, and to cross-examine the orthodox witnesses and cross-examine them to shreds. This is because luckily 'many lawyers can come up to speed quite quickly on the basics', so they'd be just as good. Just as good as 'Brink or Black'. If the 'local lawyers' turn out not to be among those 'many lawyers', that's too bad; but if they are, then they can 'come up to speed quite quickly on the basics' like Kevin Borick. Who, it turned out, was unable to, despite coaching by the Perth Group and consultations with 'Consulting Lawyer' Brink.

In the light of President Crowe's scintillating advice on how to run HIV-AIDS litigation, irrespective of the lesson the Parenzee disaster taught about engaging trial attorneys who are scientific neophytes, do you think maybe at some point he's taken a serious knock on his head?

Crowe's promotion of Duesberg's 'HIV exists but is harmless' line, well knowing that it's scientifically unsound, and his use of any trick, ploy, ruse or pretext to suppress the truth about AIDS identified by the Perth Group – 'HIV' has never been proved to exist – is of course a dishonest, pusillanimous approach springing naturally from his compulsive mendacity on exhibit in this piece, an approach consonant with the sort of congenital lying and cheating to which a dishonest small time-politician resorts to build personal power and glory, ultimately unsuccessfully, and likewise the sort of congenital lying and cheating to which a dishonest businessman resorts to accumulate his wealth (Crowe's a successful businessman, jets around everywhere business class), but who ultimately ends up bankrupt and in jail. Like the businessman before him who seized control of the Rethinking AIDS newsletter in 1994 and claimed to be representing the Group for the Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis  which Papadopulos-Eleopulos had co-founded and given its name three years earlier.