Rethinking AIDS

Rethinking AIDS

811 MEMBERS $549.74 RAISED
  • Why I Quit RA

    Posted by Sadun Kal on August 6, 2010
    To all RA supporters,

    I'm one of the admins of RA's Facebook group, and the creator of RA's facebook page ( and the cause ( To my knowledge I was also the one who convinced RA's president David Crowe to be more active in places like Facebook back in 2008.

    Yet my disillusionment with RA and its president has finally reached a stage where I see no hope of RA helping the cause of successfully challenging the scientific orthodoxy. RA apparently lacks the capacity or has no interest in ending all this HIV/AIDS controversy once and for all. Just as the militaries don't actually aspire for peace, but rather are hungry for war, this organization is incapable of imagining a future without AIDS and consciously acting towards such a future. This is indicated by the decisions and behavior of RA's president David Crowe and RA's passive board members (Duesberg, Bauer, Fiala, Rasnick, Leppo, DeHarven etc.). So I decided to share the criticisms against RA also here in this group. I consider this a good starting point and recommend that you read all the 6 parts:

    Much more RA-critical dissident material can be found here:

    I don't agree with all that is said over there, and generally don't fully approve of the language or style, but the content I consider valuable. You can find a lot of examples of hypocrisy, lack of honesty and openness, objectivity, awareness etc. from various RA affiliates. What disturbs me most is the organizations lack of interest in distinguishing good science from bad science, and actually promoting/encouraging good science. RA's Duesberg bias renders it vulnerable to Dueberg's pseudoscience and makes it resist and in a way suppress the Perth Group's work. That the Perth Group wasn't present neither in the conference in California, nor in Vienna is only one of the signs. Inform yourselves and make up your own mind. I personally have almost no more hope for RA. A different approach seems essential for significant progress... progress that would actually make a permanent, global difference.

    If you care about what RA seems to aim for, what it does, how it does it, then it follows you'd care about whether or not RA is under the control of biased people who are willing to compromise from good science in exchange for social/economic comfort. (See Especially since this is all about a scientific controversy in the end, a scientific bias is having a heavy toll on the cause.

    Unless more people become aware of RA's deficiencies and raise their voices to improve things I don't think anything will really change. So as a final sign of optimism I decided to share these thoughts with other people. What happens from this point on is up to you, what you make with all that information. The least I'd hope some of you would do is to inform yourselves, ask questions and demand explanations.

    If -after you spend time to look into all this- it turns out that all is actually well and there's no room for improvement, then that would just be calming. But if, as I'm now convinced, there are a lot of critical problems with this RA organization, then you probably wouldn't regret knowing about it, since it will give you a chance to do something to fix things. You decide.

    Kind Regards,
    Sadun Kal