Clark Baker and RA attempt, once again, to muddy the
waters, and Claus Jensen explains, once again, the simple facts of the
On 2 December 2009 Clark Baker wrote:
Claus – I don’t understand your argument. REGARDLESS of what
happened with Parenzee, THE CASE IS OVER. Smart lawyers learn
from their mistakes and move on – they DON’T whine about the
loss or blame others.
I doubt that AIDS can be beaten in one case. Brown
v. Board of Education didn’t
defeat racism – it simply allowed a few black children to attend
a white school. You can’t eat the whole enchilada in one bite –
you take little bites and, if it’s too big, you invite your
friends. As for Brink and Knoll, I don’t like their table
Clark, on these points we agree, and my guess is that
most people don't like our table manners.
But we must be clear that this was not Brink's case,
thus not his mistake. It is, however, a part of his case against RA
a case, we agree, shouldn't be necessary at all.
The Perth Group I guess you could say are "whining",
but they have also learned from their mistake. They are no longer
standing idly by while others affect "sceptical consensus (unity)"
on their behalf.
What they are asking on background of what they have
learned from their defeat is to be formally disassociated from an
organisation/Board they can no longer consider friendly or ethical.
They (and Brink) reserve the right to strike back and have the
record set straight when they are accused of plagiarism by those who
plagiarise them, and reserve the right to openly disagree with RA
policies and ethics.
Those things are being flatly refused, where
possible, by David Crowe in particular.
If RA were to post, and thereby endorse, a history of
PG's contributions to, and their undisputed priority in, most
dissident science; and if RA would publish a notice that PG are
disassociated from RA, and that they are not supporting or endorsing
any RA initiatives unless they explicitly say so, I predict that
Brink and his gnomes would go away fairly quickly and take most of
their vitriol with them, provided they are not attacked further
(scientific criticism excepted and welcome of course).
But Crowe refuses to do this. Instead we must endure
hypocritical Truther rhetoric about how childish it is to discuss
who said what first when we should all be busy saving lives.
Well, if it is so childish and irrelevant, why
doesn't RA act the grown-up and concede priority, instead of having
de Harven present "new alternatives" in Oakland that are two decades
On background of what was initially made available, I
criticised, like almost everybody else, PG's political naiveté and
Borick's pitifully poor performance. Assuming PG were the ones that
had prepared and rehearsed Borick, I didn't understand the strategy
of his cross examination and thought it reflected badly on PG. And I
thought Eleni looked weak under cross examination, until I found out
only a small excerpt had been made available.
Now I have had the opportunity to have certain
things explained to me, for example why PG insisted on being the
only dissidents present. I have read the brilliant case they had
prepared (their evidence-in-chief), I have analysed the way Crowe
and others have responded to inquiries and accusations, I have seen
the undeserved loss of prestige PG have suffered, also among
dissidents, and how they were being subtly set up for this fall over
the years, and I have reached my own conclusions.
I know that looking forward is all the rage where
you come from, but when the past is largely hidden from public view
and poorly understood, when its mistakes are denied and even minimal
redress not offered, I do not believe we have learned from it.
When you're in the foxhole in a battle, your
partner is bound to eventually fart over your face as you
snooze. If RA and PG cannot resolve their differences, why not
simply let their subordinate philosophical differences co-exist
I confess I don't know how to navigate the RA
foxhole, but I can find no closing of ranks around the Perth
Group following the Parenzee Trial similar to the statement
issued by the Board in defence of David Crowe:
The Board finds no fault with Mr. Crowe's handling of
such issues as the 2008 letter to Science or providing
assistance to the defense attorney in the 2006 Parenzee
case. The recent baseless, ad hominem sniping on the
Internet serves no constructive purpose other than to
re-affirm the lack of intellectual rigor and equanimity
of individual posters. Personal attacks detract from
RA's efforts to undermine the toxic HIV/AIDS paradigm.
In fact, I find next to nothing,
although the damage and need for support was much
What I do find is a commentary
section on David Crowe's Parenzee site. Only a
single Board member, Prof. Henry Bauer, has
commented for the record. Prof Bauer concludes that
the Perth Group's non-existence (Bauer was later
made aware by me that the Perth Group's position was
no proof of existence rather than non-existence)
strategy was ill-conceived, and that a better
strategy would be to argue no proof of causation.
The only other articles linked that
specifically evaluate the Perth Group's strategy and
performance are by Anthony Liversidge, Duesberg's
Liversidge has recently summed up his
Is there any need for an I’m OK
You’re OK spirit among AIDS paradigm critics? Surely
they are truthseekers, who must crank up their
review engine whenever it is fed some claim by
anybody, friend or foe. Should they turn it off for
The whole idea is to serve science not politics. But
even in politics, the Perth group are a menace to
the aim of the critics, who are first of all seeking
a hearing from people of influence, which is hard
enough without having the burden of dissociating
themselves from extreme ideas which bring them into
even more disrepute by tying them to an easy target
for the HIV/AIDS goon squad.
In the RA foxhole it seems as if the
positions of the partners' arses and faces are
permanently and hierarchically fixed. So, like
Malcolm X, we're all for peaceful co-existence
in separate foxholes.