Clark Baker and RA attempt, once again, to muddy the waters, and Claus Jensen explains, once again, the simple facts of the Parenzee case


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 manners.



Jensen replied:

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 old?

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 in peace?  





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 greater then.

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 personal mouthpiece.

Liversidge has recently summed up his position:

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 allies?
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.