A letter to David Crowe
In re the Parenzee case
The Perth Group
June 1st 2008
COVERING EMAIL TEXT
Some of you may remember many email exchanges on the subject “Duesberg’s soft spot”. These emails were initiated by Sadun Kal who held the view that Peter Duesberg should respond to the Perth Group on the question of the existence of HIV. This led to a debate between several dissidents including Mr. Crowe and ourselves. One of the main issues debated was the Parenzee hearing because the existence of HIV was the Defence strategy agreed to by Mr. Kevin Borick, the Defence lawyer, at this hearing.
At some point David Crowe declined to respond publicly, preferring to do so in private. We prepared a private response but then changed our mind and did not send it. However, circumstances have now altered and there are several reasons, including the following, why we are now sending this response:
Many dissidents are still asking for details about the Parenzee case.
The recent accusation that we have unfairly judged Mr. Crowe.
Eleni, Val and John
You wrote: “I wanted to assist the trial to support you and Eleni.”
Since the inaugural meeting of the RA, the Board of Directors unanimously voted that the Perth Group contribution to the dissident movement was in the past, did you think you and your experts could come with fresh ideas to help us? If the reason for your interference in the R v Parenzee case was to assist us why didn’t you tell us directly like other dissidents did? Why did you advise Kevin Borick to have other expert witnesses only after we gave our evidence-in-chief and at least half of our cross-examination when, as you yourself noted, it appeared we were going well and not before the hearing started?
You wrote: “I actually talked to Kevin Borick infrequently during the trial. I mostly communicated via third parties. There were times he asked for my opinions on documents, but usually he was using me as a conduit to get outside opinions.”
What do you think made Kevin ask you for an “opinion on documents”? Do you think that there were documents containing evidence upon which we could not give an opinion?
If you gave your “opinion on documents”, why weren’t you called to be a scientific expert witness to the court?
Don’t you think that obtaining “outside opinions”, transmitting them to a third party, who may or may not have been able to fully understand the scientific facts, and who in turn transmitted the information to Kevin, sounds like a merry-go-round comedy of errors and a sure recipe for failure, especially without our (the scientific expert witnesses), being aware of it?
You wrote: “I was indeed very concerned that you and Eleni would not be accepted as expert witnesses…”
In our enquiries both Kevin and we found that a scientific expert must satisfy at least one of two conditions: (1) have publications in the field in peer reviewed scientific journals; (2) practical experience in the given field.
Since we satisfied one of the conditions, namely, we have published articles on “HIV”/AIDS in peer reviewed scientific journals, and de Harven has not satisfied either condition, what made you think that we were not going to be accepted and de Harven would be? Since de Harven’s contribution to retrovirology is limited to the Friend leukemia virus and the evidence for the existence of this virus (see Appendix I) is no better than that for the existence of “HIV”, what made you think that his arguments against “HIV” would stand up in court?
You wrote: “I did express a belief that other experts should be involved and did help get affidavits from Etienne and others (I can’t remember them all).”
If these “other experts” were so important, why can’t you remember them all?
You wrote: “I would have liked to have other experts participating in order to shore up your standing. There would have been less motivation for the judge to exclude you if someone like Etienne was making essentially the same argument.”
You know, as the Judge pointed out at the commencement of the hearing, the main proposition Kevin sought to prove “during the course of the application” was that “…viruses are proven to exist by a procedure virologists refer to as virus isolation [purification]. The presently available evidence does not prove a virus known as HIV has been isolated." This means that the existence of “HIV” was “on trial”. Since the Director of Public Prosecutions pointed out “there are two experts who hold the view that HIV has not been proved to exist and they stand, if you like, on an island of their own, in amongst the other dissidents”, what made you think that there would be other dissidents, who are expert in the field, who could “shore up” our “standing”?
Since Montagnier is said to be the discoverer of “HIV”, in our evidence we analysed in great detail his 1983 paper. We claimed that Montagnier’s evidence did not prove the existence of a retrovirus. In particular we pointed out that his EM pictures showed particles which are identical to the particles often seen in the placenta known as endogenous retroviruses. Since Montagnier did not have any evidence for their transmission, these particles cannot be viruses. Gallo agreed that unless there is evidence for transmission, no particle, even those having the morphology of retroviruses, can be considered a virus. Answering one of Kevin’s questions, Gallo responded: “…endogenous retroviruses aren’t viruses as your first witness [EP-E] properly said, they are particles, they have never been transmitted. A virus is something that infects, that you prove goes from person A to B. Short of that they are particles. Where a virus at least has to be transmitted in vitro in the laboratory, it goes from one cell to another, it’s never been demonstrated for endogenous retroviruses.” (T1298)
In his letter, April 28, 2008, “To: all RA Board of Director’s Members”, de Harven claims that both Peter and we are wrong. He claimed that his observations:
· “…HIV has never been observed under the electron microscope in the blood of patients…”;
· “…HIV has never been satisfactorily purified…”;
· “…all the electron microscope pictures of so-called HIV originate from highly complex cell culture systems, never directly from one single AIDS patient…”
led him to put “a major question: “does HIV really exist?” That critical question was formally raised during the European parliament debate on “AIDS in Africa”, held in Brussels in 2003 (de Harven 2003)”.
Furthermore de Haven claimed that he gave the correct answer to this question. Specifically, contrary to our evidence, de Harven claims that Montagnier “UNQUESTIONABLY” proved the existence of a retrovirus, but was an endogenous virus, not “HIV”. A few years ago de Harven wrote to a dissident “Back to Eleni! You are right she frequently said and wrote that whatever the Pasteur group had in 1983 will not be a retrovirus! But she is wrong on that! Fig. 2, in this 1983 paper shows TYPICAL retroviruses budding on the surface of a lymphocyte. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Anybody with an “EM eye” will agree with me on that. This particle ARE RETROVIRUSES!”
After we gave our evidence-in-chief and the director of public prosecution finished with the cross-examination, Kevin told us that he intended to call Peter Duesberg and others as expert witnesses. Peter, unlike us and de Harven, believes that in 1983 Montagnier proved the existence of “HIV” and that “HIV” is an exogenous retrovirus, sexually transmitted, albeit not very efficiently, and there exist “HIV” antibodies which neutralise it.
If Kevin had called Peter and de Harven as expert witnesses, as he was advised, then the judge would have heard the following claims:
· Peter: in 1983 Montagnier proved the existence of an exogenous retrovirus (“HIV”).
· de Harven: in 1983 Montagnier proved the existence of an endogenous retrovirus, not “HIV”.
· We: in 1983 Montagnier did not prove the existence of any retrovirus.
As a result, Kevin’s witnesses would have argued against each other. By not calling Peter and de Harven, Kevin managed to avoid the dissidents arguing against each other in court but did not salvage the hearing.
(1) you interfered in the hearing after our evidence-in-chief and cross-examination in which we put “HIV on Trial”;
(2) the prosecution and the Judge were fully aware that your proposed expert witnesses did not share our views;
(3) the scope of the hearing was changed from “there is no proof for the existence of HIV” to “HIV is not the cause of AIDS”;
the Judge had no choice but to consider our evidence as rubbish and dismiss us as expert witnesses thereby ruling against the dissident case and sadly as a consequence against Andre Parenzee.
You posted the Perth Group affidavits on your website. Why did you not also post your experts’ affidavits? By doing so everyone could have seen that in regard to the existence of HIV, which was the thrust of this whole case, the views of your experts were no different from those of the prosecution experts. The difference is, as far as the Judge was concerned, their evidence would have carried much more weight than that of the HIV experts in dismissing us.
The question is how you, who claims to know the dissidents’ views and to have knowledge of legal matters, interfered on the premise that you were trying to help us? Would you please give us the true reason for your interference?
You wrote: “I have sensed that you are very concerned about the scientific priority of questioning the existence of HIV. I think it’s pretty clear that it was your group that first raised this. Testimony in a trial in 2007 was not going to change the history of this.”
How did you “sense” and obviously believe that our involvement in the hearing was merely to seek “scientific priority”? A few years ago we wrote a small summary on our published work of “HIV”/AIDS which we asked you to post on your RA website. Although our main reason was for people not to misinterpret our published work (de Harven still does), you declined on the grounds that we were asking for “scientific priority”. Since you and de Harven appear to believe that scientific priority belongs to those who raise scientific questions formally in public forums, was your interference in the hearing for the same reason?
You wrote: “In summary, I gave input when I was asked. But at no time did I try to push Borick into a particular direction. If he changed direction after talking to me that was probably because he was already thinking about that. I think other people involved can also attest to this.”
· you did “express a belief that other experts should be involved”;
· you obtained and sent Kevin affidavits;
· you gave Kevin questions for the cross-examination of the prosecution expert witnesses which were contrary to the initial scope of the hearing;
it means you did “push Borick into a particular direction”.
How many “other people” do you know who were involved behind our backs in this hearing and who are they?
You wrote: “My main aims were coordination and fund raising. And I did modestly well at those.”
As far as we know, the Defence team consisted of Kevin and ourselves, so on whose behalf were you coordinating and for what purpose?
Since nowhere can we find data on funds and expenditure we do not know how successful you were in your “fund raising” efforts. However we do know that when someone donated a substantial amount of money and asked you to use some of it to buy the transcripts of our evidence you declined. Why did you do that?
You wrote: “This is a complete misreading of my position.”
Are you saying that the dissidents should have an internal debate regarding the existence of “HIV”?
You wrote: “Since then  I have questioned the existence of HIV at every opportunity. However, that has not stopped me from studying and speaking about evidence (or usually lack thereof) for sexual transmission, for HIV test flaws (other than the lack of a gold standard), for drug toxicities.”
On what scientific grounds do you question the existence of “HIV”?
What arguments are you using other than the lack of a gold standard to prove that there are flaws in the “HIV” antibody tests which no other antibody test has and ultimately will be of pivotal significance to the dissidents’ arguments?
You wrote: “In fact, I’m not trying to stop anything….”
As we have repeatedly told you, a scientific debate on the existence of “HIV” cannot be interpreted as “ganging up” on those “who genuinely believe that HIV does exist”.
Where on earth did you get the impression that such a debate would take place in a “pub” or with people having no knowledge of the “HIV”/ AIDS theory?
Do you think like de Harven does: “In view of this it is clear that a debate between HIV “Existentialists” and “Non-existentialists” never actually divided RA members, because such a debate has no scientifically acceptable ground” and therefore there is nothing to debate?
Who are the RA members?
You wrote: “You might do much better if you ask them … “Do you think that HIV is transmitted if you only have sex once with a person?””
In the hearing we presented evidence which shows that there is no proof that “HIV” is ever sexually transmitted. After we presented this evidence, you and your experts advised Kevin to argue the case that the probability of “HIV” transmission is not 100% and is very low. This by itself could have been more than sufficient for the Judge to have no option but to find our evidence null and void and thus to dismiss us as expert witnesses.
You wrote: “I have always been a bit confused about what is being asked of me. It seemed that the aim was to have Rethinking AIDS come up with a uniform view on the existence of HIV. I saw this as causing significant and did not support it as a goal.”
Who is asking you? Why are they asking you? What are they asking you? In what capacity are they asking you?
We asked you before, so we are repeating the question: Did you interfere in the hearing on behalf of RA and thus in collaboration with de Harven and other members of the RA Board of Directors?
You wrote: “I am much more sanguine about the possibility of differences among dissidents. I think differences are a sign of health.”
It is well known that “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand”, and particularly in a court case.
You wrote: “You promote exposure to sperm as the cause of immune deficiency. I have not seen any evidence that’s terribly convincing on this.”
Even Montagnier now accepts that the cause of immune deficiency is oxidation. There is no other biological entity which is more oxidative than semen. (see Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause? Medical Hypotheses (1988) 25: 151-162) A PubMed search will give you some evidence of semen’s immune suppressing effects. What you are not going to be able to find out in this simple search is that researchers at the Pasteur Institute knew the toxicity of semen 100 years ago.
To date the dissidents have been provided with two opportunities to make their views known to the general public. First in 2000 at the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel meetings and then the Parenzee case. Somehow both have been thwarted by the dissidents themselves, some of who have made enormous contributions to the movement including helping the Perth Group (Appendix II).
PS: You have not responded to many of our questions including some extremely important ones in our email of March 20th. Let us paraphrase one of them: In the March 20th email we included evidence which shows that like Montagnier in 1997, the “HIV” experts at the hearing accepted that to prove the existence of a new virus purification is necessary. Nobody including Gallo could produce such evidence. This being the case will you please give us the scientific reason(s) for the dissidents’ acceptance of the existence of HIV? Why should the dissidents give the “HIV” experts what they don’t have? Is your point of view that “the difference between a virus that does not exist and between one that exists, but in only small quantities and that is anyway not pathogenic, is not that great”? If by “the difference...is not that great” you refer to arguments which can be used against the “HIV” theory of AIDS, then would you please tell us what arguments the dissidents can use which will convince the scientific community (a) there are only small quantities of “HIV” and why this is important? (b) “HIV” is not pathogenic?