Clips from Brink's posts to the HIVAIDSPARADIGM discussion forum

25 July to 30 September 2009


Concerning the Perth Group's complaint, 'At its inaugural meeting the first thing the Board of Directors did was to get rid of the Perth Group by an unanimous vote', Jon wrote:

'My god, if this is true, it is more incredible, and profoundly disgusting, than anything that I have heard to date.'

Taking Crowe at his word, Sadun doubted it, as if, like a woman 'partly' pregnant, such a claim can be slightly true or mostly untrue:

'It probably is not that true. If I remember correctly, (couldn't find the email) David Crowe had replied to it that all that was done at the meeting was to officially thank the Perth Group as suggested by Christine Maggiore. When Celia asked where that rumor sourced from, nobody responded to it, as far as I know. She wrote: "If we can't clear up where this paranoid and inaccurate rumor came from then we are in trouble. Could it be a case of infiltration? Sabotage? WHERE DID THIS RUMOR COME FROM?" and there was Silence. And now we're where we are.'

Anthony comments:

Apropos of the Perth Group's complaint: 'At its inaugural meeting the first thing the Board of Directors did was to get rid of the Perth Group by an unanimous vote', Crowe responded: 'I have never understood the connection between what was actually voted on, which was very positive, and the very negative interpretation by Val Turner.'

Crowe's statement is characteristically dishonest.

In truth, he had just rejected, or was about to reject, the Perth Group's request for representation on the RA board – for the reason, he explained, that this would prejudice Peter's interests.

No one else was singled out for thanks for their contribution to the struggle against the AIDS myth.

RA never conveyed its alleged special gratitude to the Perth Group, nor was RA's ostensible special vote of thanks posted on the RA website.

The resolution by Peter's supporters 'thanking' the Perth Group was plainly a royal kiss-off, a gold watch goodbye.

Peter has displayed his own open contempt for the Perth Group repeatedly.

Dissembling further Crowe claimed: 'There was nothing in the statement that implied or stated that we did not expect that you would continue to contribute in the future.'

In truth, not only was the Perth Group not consulted in the conduct of the RA board's further activities, but acting furtively and with evident disdain for their scientific and strategic judgement Crowe prevailed on Parenzee's barrister to abandon the Perth Group's advice on the conduct and structure of the case and to radically change the basis of the defence to a Duesbergian 'HIV exists but is harmless' one, thereby aborting the appeal application with catastrophic consequences for Parenzee personally and for the progress of the rethinking AIDS movement generally – with the exception of Peter and his disciples, all rejoicing in the judge's insulting dismissal of the Perth Groups's scientific expertise.

More recently, advancing a palpably spurious reason for doing so, Crowe endorsed Rasnick's rejection of the Perth Group's formal nomination of me to speak to the 'HIV' isolation issue on their behalf at the RA conference in November, as I did in Russia last year. This ensured that the Perth Group's case on 'HIV' would be excluded from presentation at the conference. (More about this in a future post.)

And Crowe has persistently disregarded the Perth Group's repeated disavowal of 'The AIDS Trap' leaflet on the basis that it is scientifically and medically false, potentially dangerous trash, written and approved by a bunch of total scientific morons.

So much for Crowe's sickeningly disingenuous assertion: 'There was nothing in the statement that implied or stated that we did not expect that you would continue to contribute in the future.'

Crowe himself admits: 'Regarding Rethinking AIDS, the organization does have somewhat a Duesberg bias.'

Well gee, the President only assigns Peter's most loyal scientific supporter Rasnick to select the topics and pick the speakers for the conference (yes, you guessed: Rasnick leaves the core trouble with the HIV-AIDS myth, whether 'HIV' even exists, off the original programme); Peter's wife Siggi is appointed conference secretary; and a hotel in Peter's suburban backyard is chosen as the venue.

Oh, and Etienne is invited to tell the RA crowd that, contrary to what the Perth Group point out on the back of a meticulous analysis of the evidence, Montagnier unquestionably did find and publish a picture of a retrovirus, only it wasn't HIV; and that wow we're all full of retroviruses, just like Peter says, only Etienne says they're 'endogenous'.

So that Seth Kalichman, who's announced he'll be attending the conference, can have a field day reporting all these and other basic scientific contradictions between the speakers (with some of the speakers even contradicting themselves on the fundamentals one day after the other) and go home giggling along with his friends at AIDSTruth over the performance of tumbling farting clowns he watched at RA 2009.

And who'll be able to protest such a depiction would be inaccurate and unfair?

In sum, it hardly needs shouting out that Crowe's RA organization, funded by the selfsame individual who funds Peter, exists to promote Peter's 'HIV exists but is harmless' horseshit.

Now there's nothing wrong with an American organization selling scientific horseshit.

We're all used to Americans selling scientific horseshit.

What's objectionable is that a Peter Duesberg support group should hold itself out as representing the Perth Group and their supporters, who happen to comprise the almost complete majority of scientifically literate AIDS dissidents, all the while marginalizing the Perth Group and suppressing its critique at every opportunity, as if a grinning cell-phone salesman knows more about HIV-AIDS and how to debunk it than they do..


Liam wrote:

It is most notable that a number of the most active people in this thing
have been fowarding questions and complaints, and strong and considered
suggestions to, essentially, the leadership of RA, and the response has

The response has been silence. Celia tried to make peace of it, which
was conciliatory and sensitive - but it was not her job to answer for
those being asked questions - it is theirs.

Where is Peter, David Rasnick, David Crowe, answering the questions
posed by Janine, very reasonably, by Anthony Brink, with considerable
heat, and by myself and Jonathan Campbell, with due respect?

Here is Crowe's response to my 'tokoloshe letter' on RA Facebook:

I would just like everyone to know that Anthony Brink's letter is full of lies and distortions. Just taking his claim that I 'formed' RA in 2006, for example, which he uses to claim I have total control over the organization. This contention is totally false. When I was invited to join the board of RA in 2006 the board of directors was already in place and stayed unchanged until 2008 when Christine died and Bryan Owen resigned, opening up two positions filled (by nominations and a required 2/3 majority vote of the board) by Drs. Henry Bauer and Helen Lauer. That is just one of many falsehoods. For Anthony Brink to post this on Seth Kalichman's blog shows that he would put his personal vendetta against me at a higher level of importance than the lives of HIV-positive people who are being killed by society's belief in HIV. Kalichman and other dogmatists must love that Anthony Brink is trying to do their work for them.

And more:

RA was revived in 2006 by David Rasnick. Anthony Brink said "David Crowe decided to form a new organization". That's a lie, and it's important because if I had formed a new organization I could have hand-picked the board members. But the truth is that ALL board members were in place when David Rasnick asked me to join the board. Not a single board member was appointed during my tenure on the board until Henry Bauer and Helen Lauer in 2009.

I have posted the minutes at: with one small redaction of a part that was deemed confidential at the time. I don't believe it still is but I'd need to get board approval to publish the notes with that in.

My role at that meeting was as a facilitator due to Etienne's absence. It was agreed that I had more experience running meetings than others, but as facilitator I had no more decision making power than all the other (previously appointed) board members.

Where did I say anything about two meetings before June 2006? There were definitely a number of conference calls leading up to the June meeting. Note that I wasn't president at that time. David Rasnick handed off to Etienne de Harven until his term was up in 2008 at which point I was appointed president. Initially I was just a board member and then Treasurer.

It's also a lie that I don't question the existence of HIV. That's a big lie because I've been doing that for approximately a decade.

This letter in my local newspaper from 1997 is probably my first musings on the existence problem:

And here's a letter to Canada's Minister of Health also from 1997 that makes it explicit:

What Anthony Brink has posted is a sequence of outrageous lies and to post them on Seth Kalichman's blog leaves me speechless.

I never posted to Kalichman's site; he cross-posted from AME.

In my 'tokoloshe letter' I don't lie, as claimed, that Crowe doesn't dispute the existence of HIV.

On the contrary I quote him 'questioning' the existence of HIV twice.

But note his typical style in argument.

The debating crook sets up a non-issue as an issue to contest, claims to win it with a great show of indignant expostulation and hand flapping, and claims his non-victory as proof of his opponent's dishonesty.

RA must be very proud to have a 'President' like this.

With the mind of a five year old.

My friends, you really want to keep your President out of a courthouse, or there will be blood on the walls behind him in minutes, I promise you.

You can't get away with things like this when under oath and subject to cross examination. You sometimes even go to jail afterwards.

His protesting too much, dishonestly, seems to spring from a troubled conscience.

Mummy did say never to spread lies.

And here he is doing it.

He knows that 'HIV' is a lie. It has never been proven to exist any more than Henry Bauer's Loch Ness Monster has.

But in a meretricious compromise with the truth for purely personal ends he spreads the lie of 'HIV'.

Making Peter his top act at his conference to tell everyone oh 'HIV' most definitely exists and the Perth Group don't know what they're talking about.

Of course Crowe maneuvers to ensure that the Perth Group isn't represented there to challenge this and to show the conference's top billed superstar is unhappily a scientific fool, however tremendously amusing dinner company he might be.

Why, that would spoil the party!

He never says, Peter, this 'HIV' of yours is as good as Henry's sea-monster. Everyone except maybe a couple of your more loving groupies who haven't ever been able to make sense of a serious scientific paper in their lives knows your passenger virus story is ridiculous. It's time your started telling it like it is. Even in Brent's film you say you sometimes do things in science for money, like 'a prostitute.'

And because Perth Group comes showing the lie about 'HIV' to be a lie, Crowe kicks them in the mouth at every opportunity, details to follow.

As for the creation of RA and Crowe's role in it etc, this important subject will be canvassed at length.

Stand by.


Dear Henry, you say:

> My experience is that Crowe sends e-mails to Board members whenever he
proposes something, and often circulates several drafts.

After you and your board had specifically discussed and debated at the June
2006 inauguration meeting whether to involve yourselves and RA's scientists
Peter and Etienne in the Parenzee case in Australia, and after RA had
formally taken a resolution not to intrude yourselves and your scientists
Peter and Etienne in the case, even though the wannabe lawyer who watches
too much TV was busting to intrude himself and your scientists Peter and
Etienne in the case, did Crowe afterwards as a board member himself and
strictly bound by the RA board's resolutions, 'send e-mails to Board
members', 'propos[ing] something', possibly by way of 'several drafts ...
circulate[d]' to other board members, along the following lines:

Go and fuck yourselves.
Who the fuck do you think you are trying to control me and stop me doing
whatever I feel like?
What makes you think I give a fuck about your stupid board and its
Do you think your stupid board has any power over me?
I'll do whatever the fuck I want.
And if I want to get involved in the Parenzee case like I was insisting on
doing at the June 2006 meeting and get our fellow board members Peter and
Etienne to testify in the case so that they can give contradictory expert
evidence with a view to discrediting the Perth Group's expert evidence,
since contradictory expert evidence isn't usually corroboratory expert
evidence, and thereby change the evidential basis of the appeal midstream,
so as to give the judge his opening to throw it out, and hand Parenzee his
ticket to prison, I'll get involved in the case and get Peter and Etienne to
testify, and fuck all of you too.

More or less in those terms, Henry?

This is the bit in Etienne's post to which I'm referring:

> I wanted the Board to have an annual meeting that took place, in New
York, in June 2006. Among the questions debated during that meeting
was the question to find out whether RA should, or should not, get
involved in legal cases. Pushing in favor was one of our Board
members, namely David Crowe. (I was against it !). The vote, at the
New York meeting was NO: i.e. RA should not get involved in legal
cases! Still, in 2007, David Crowe got (laboriously !!!) involved in
the Parenzee case in Australia, although, as well as I can remember,
he was careful not to speak to the Australian court on behalf of RA .
Still, I was regarding Crowe's involvement in the Parenzee case as an
embarrassment, because he was a Board member, and the decision had
been voted in New York in 2006 for RA NOT to get involved....

If Crowe didn't email such a 'propos[al]' to you, but as Etienne reports in
his post you were nonetheless aware that Crowe was defying a resolution of
the RA board not to interfere in the case, why did you do nothing to prevent

Why was he not sanctioned for going in?
Not to mention buggering the case up, thinking he knew better how to
construct a scientific defence strategy than the Perth Group did.
After watching too many episodes of Law and Order.

Think of a war room.
A real war room not a sham.
Real generals discuss whether to attack Washington or not, whether it would
be the right thing to do in prosecuting the war against the international
criminal rogue state.
They debate the pros and cons.
Of flattening Washington.
They finally resolve not to.
One of them does anyway, with disastrous consequences for the war against
the international criminal rogue state.

What would one conclude from this, Henry?
Oh, our general was just out on a little frolic of his own, bless his heart.
Or would he be put against the wall and then thrown to the pigs to eat?

If RA was anything other than a sham, and had real oversight, a real
directorial function, as opposed to window dressing, why was Crowe never
called to account?

> A president has to delegate, and then of course gets criticized for
everything that anyone doesn't like about anything that has been done by
him or by others. What constructive purposes are served by such
after-the-event criticisms?

If you are referring to Crowe's delegation of Rasnick to pick the topics and
the speakers for the conference (presuming Rasnick didn't just give himself
the job), then his delegation of this critical, extraordinarily politically
sensitive function to Peter's lapdog guaranteed disaster.
And it resoundingly demonstrates Crowe's utter incompetence as a director.
The worst of it was Crowe's lack of appreciation for the potentially
explosive consequences of rejecting Eleni's request that I present her
science on her behalf, concocting and putting up the most stupid and
transparently dishonest justifications for supporting Rasnick's
shit-brained, mala fide decision (she had to present herself in person to be
interrogated on whether a lot of semen in your backside may be
immunosuppressive (as the literature tells)).

> Parenzee:

> I was also in contact with Parenzee's lawyer during the appeal, like Crowe
largely via an intermediate, and I gained no inkling of anything that has
been charged by the critics of Crowe. The lawyer had not initially even
known that the Perthian view was not the only anti-orthodox view around,
and this caused him to make unfortunate and unhelpful changes of emphasis
from trial to appeal.

This statement stands as disgraceful evidence that you have not yet read and
digested the email exchange between Crowe and Eleni, indicting his
misconduct, either when released in April, or republished by me on my site a
couple of weeks ago, and repeatedly mentioned with URL in posts over the
last couple of days.
Your statement does not accord with the undisputed facts on record.
Since you haven't read this yet: Eleni tells that within minutes of meeting
Borrick, the first thing she did was tell him about Peter and his very
different critique of the HIV-AIDS model. And that he was free to choose him
and it instead.

> The critical point in the whole affair was that the
judge refused to accept the Perthians as qualified witnesses, and nothing
that Crowe or anyone else did had any influence over that, the judge
simply swallowed the legally plausible prosecution argument that only
people who had themselves worked in an accredited manner on HIV/AIDS could
be expert witnesses.

You have disgracefully failed to acquaint yourself with the facts before
mouthing off so irresponsibly:

I repeat what I wrote recently:


You wonder:

> Whether the judge would have accepted the Perth Group's testimony, given
the nature of the trial and the "luminaries" who did give testimony, is up
to question.

If you read page 15 of the Perth Group's account of how Crowe fucked up the
case ( ), you'll appreciate
how well the case was going at the point Crowe fatally interfered.

You say:

> But you cannot give contradictory evidence (HIV as a virus does not exist
and cannot be isolated, HIV as a virus does exist and can be isolated but it
is harmless) and hope to win in a court of law; the prosecution would have
slashed it to ribbons.

Yes, Jon, and obviously so to anyone with any brains; and on page 14 of the
Perth Group's account of how Crowe fucked up the case, one of the reasons
stated by the court for rejecting Parenzee's application for a retrial was
that 'in determining whether fresh evidence is to be admissible, it is
necessary for the appellate court to apprehend the scope and nature of the
evidence sought to be admitted. The change of position of the applicant had
the potential to confuse this issue.'

> I was also privy to early attempts to organize the Oakland conference and
know that Crowe invited the Perthians to join the organizing committee.
They refused, in effect, by asking for guarantees of what the committee
would eventually decide.

This is news to me.
Since you insinuate that the Perth Group acted unreasonably, please just
tell us what the Perth Group were asking for, so we can decide for ourselves
whether in refusing to join the organizing committee they acted unreasonably
as you insinuate.

Looking forward

Etienne De Harven wrote to me, later copied by him to this group:

> The vote requested by Bialy never took place, and Bialy resigned as  member of the Board of Directors shortly afterwards.

Rod asked:

So, who replaced Bialy on the board? Did anyone? Why wasn't the Perth Group asked at this point to take Bialy's seat on the Board? This seems to be a vacancy which Crowe has failed to mention in any of his "histories" of the new RA to date.

Brink records:

Incidentally,  Etienne told me that he proposed me, and his proposal was rejected (it's well known that I'm close to the Perth Group, and am an honorary co-author of some of their papers).

I do understand the board's attitude that I'm completely insignificant in having put the AIDS dissident movement on the political map by turning Mbeki with Debating AZT.

In having written several definitive books since, on nevirapine and the foetal and neonatal toxicity of AZT, on Mbeki's thinking on AIDS, and other matters.

About whom Peter observed, 'He's really a molecular biologist pretending to be a lawyer.'

Working night and day on this problem since 1996, and full-time for the last five years.


But I'm completely unimportant from an American point of view. I understand this.

Etienne wrote further:

> You give too much credit to the PG for the "HIV does not exist"
> approach! It was not their idea !!! It was that of Stefan Lanka, in
> 1994 (?). And the PG swiftly appropriated it !!!...

Rod commented:

> (sigh) Etienne, you have now seriously lost any credibility you may have had. If it's not obvious to you by now that, first of all, the Perth Group has ALWAYS stated and CONTINUES to state that there is no proof of the isolation of "HIV" and NOT that "HIV does not exist", IT NEVER WILL BE. In addition, if what you're confused about is actually chronology and not ideology, anyone who is able to read knows full well that the Perth Group published data on "HIV isolation" LONG BEFORE Lanka ever came on the scene.

I responded to Etienne:

Good heavens man, you cannot be serious!!!

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues are intellectual thieves!!!

They are thieves!!!

Etienne! Did you possibly dine too well this evening?!!!

Everything Stefan Lanka said and wrote about 'HIV' and 'retroviruses' (and making many foolish basic mistakes as he did so) derived from lengthy telephone calls to Eleni in which he sat at her feet, so to speak, gobbling up everything she taught him.

Do you get that, Etienne?

Gobbling up everything she taught him from the cutting edge of the field: her hard work, her insights, her conclusions, her original science, everything he ran off with and claimed as his own.

You are evidently unaware that his scientific plagiarism is the reason she'll have nothing to do with him now.

Read Lanka's pieces on virusmyth again, and apply your discerning French nose for fine French cheese and fine French wine (such as we enjoyed many times together with Christian): you'll see it's all Eleni's, uncredited! It jumps off the page at you!


I have just checked Etienne's book, Ten Lies about AIDS, and yes it's in there: Etienne attributes the missing virus problem to Lanka.

I'm embarrassed to say I didn't insist this be fixed when reviewing the text and writing the foreword.

I'll return to the significance of this matter in time.


I am authorized to make it known that the Perth Group's critical comment on RA's The AIDS Trap leaflet will soon be available.

For those unaware of the history of the matter:

On 23 May 2009 Crowe issued a press statement to announce the publication of The AIDS Trap, 'a brochure [that] outlines how tests for HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) or AIDS have no scientific basis and are useless as a diagnostic tool determining who will get AIDS, and describes the dangers of coming up positive on the tests.'

Crowe claimed further: 'This brochure is endorsed by the board of Rethinking AIDS, an association of more than 2,600 doctors, scientists, and other professionals.'

He made this claim notwithstanding that the Perth Group had expressly repudiated the leaflet on the basis, they pointed out, that it was ridden with elementary scientific errors and contained statements that could be dangerous to health if accepted and acted upon.

Being an experienced cell-phone salesman, however, Crowe decided that he knew better than the Perth Group when it comes to the science of AIDS; contemptuously dismissed their disavowal of the leaflet on scientific grounds; and went ahead with announcing its availability to the general public.

As mentioned in the press statement, the entire RA board 'endorsed' The AIDS Trap.

This is to say the entire RA board considers The AIDS Trap scientifically impeccable.

It follows therefore that the quality of the science set out in The AIDS Trap represents the scientific understanding of all persons belonging to the RA board.

As will appear from the Perth Group's commentary on The AIDS Trap, the quality of the science in the minds of Crowe and all other persons belonging to his RA board is pitiable.

And serious AIDS dissidents will be confirmed in their refusal to recognise Crowe and his fellow scientific incompetents on the RA board as the political and scientific leaders of the international AIDS dissident community.

The election of the almost complete majority of scientifically literate AIDS dissidents to rather look to Perth will be vindicated similarly.


I woke up this morning wise to why Crowe likes to say and say again: 'I am answerable to the RA board.'

It sounds good.

It sounds convincing.

It implies that he actually does.

Only he doesn't.

The RA board never calls on him to answer, not even for the most egregious misconduct in repeatedly breaching board resolutions.

And this is why what Crowe says about answering to the RA board is deceptive and a species of lying.

It just seems to come naturally to him, as we've seen.

Take this, just in:

Some time back Crowe charged me with posting my 'tokoloshe letter' to Kalichman's blog.

Later in this forum, he withdrew that false claim and acknowledged that Kalichman had cross-posted from

Now he repeats it, well knowing it's a lie.

In an email to Kal today, copied to Peter, Val and me:


By posting on Seth Kalichman's blog Anthony Brink is consorting with the devil. It is clear his mission is to destroy me, RA and RA 2009. There is nothing I can do or say to dissuade him.

He did not even give me the courtesy of asking me some questions or suggesting changes to the RA website. Nor did Val Turner. 30 pages of accusations cc'd to many people is an attack, not a desire to understand.

In fact, Val Turner began his last massive document by explicitly stating that any mistakes they had made in the Parenzee trial were off the table. It's more important to attack me than to find out how we can work more effectively in the future.

There's nothing to discuss until Val and Anthony decide that they want to indulge in a polite and constructive discussion.

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but some things cannot be mediated.

- David

Crowe's email is packed with typical slimy lies.

The '30 pages of accusations' is in truth a compendium of email traffic between Crowe and Eleni on the Parenzee case, both sides speaking, plus further comment by Eleni.

It is not just '30 pages of accusations': it's an indictment of Crowe's furtive, fatal interference in the case, with his defences recorded.

Crowe's further justification of his conduct in the matter, emailed to the same group, can be read at near the foot of my TIG POSITION STATEMENT ON 'HIV'.

So it's the complete case, for and against, and he's even given the advantage of the last word.

Indeed the document focuses on Crowe's direct role in the case as the proximate cause of its failure, something obvious to everyone but him.

Any tactical mistakes the Perth Group might have made in the case were 'not off the table' generally speaking, and Crowe was free to try shifting the blame in his further response.

With ethics like his on show, no wonder Crowe took to business.

Crowe has already registered his refusal to debate his conduct in this forum even with ever-polite Sadun Kal.

This is because he doesn't hold himself accountable to criticism from those he claims to speak for, period.

Whether the criticism is immaculately 'polite and constructive', like Eleni's.

Or completely contemptuous and rude, like mine.

I regret to record that for as long as this useless, lying, namby-pamby moron continues passing himself off to the world as the 'President' of the international AIDS dissident community, I will never 'decide … to indulge in a polite and constructive discussion' with him.

He's been 'indulged' for far too long already.

Last thing.

The RA website has been up for years.

The Perth Group doesn't even feature in RA's 'About us' tab, which sings all Peter's praises and even links to his website, so you can learn all about how 'HIV' is a harmless passenger virus.

This is the scientific truth RA is selling.

Peter, of course, is the RA's top scientist (whose supporters dominate the RA board), and believes in retroviruses and 'HIV', only it can't harm you even if it infects you, which it can 'readily' do if you're one of those 'most sexually active homosexuals' but not at all 'readily' if you're heterosexual, even one of those 'most sexually active' heterosexuals, because among heterosexuals, even 'the most sexually active' heterosexuals, Peter's virus (which like the devil Crowe refers to has never been seen, even though all his fellow retrovirus experts say retroviruses can be and must be purified and seen in the shape of little identical particles) is transmitted sexually with 'extremely low efficiency'. Eat that, kids!

When I publicly point that the Perth Group isn't even mentioned in RA's 'About us' tab, and the significance of this, Crowe bleats that I should have raised this with him privately before doing so.

So that he can make one ad hoc adjustment after another – like giving Etienne Eleni's topic, Eleni's work, Eleni's discoveries about 'HIV', to present at the conference, after supporting Rasnick's rejection of her authorized representative – to stave off my charge that RA functions essentially as a Duesberg 'HIV is harmless' support group, as I pointed out in my 'tokoloshe letter'.

And to dispel any lingering doubt this, note how Crowe copies Peter and not the rest of the RA board.


Funny for the day:

They just don't think you're leadership material either, David!

Fleeing the building and continuing your meeting in the parking lot outside and everything!

Hey boys! There's an idea for RA 2009. We show up! And they all go running away!


Dear Andy

> I don't think bullying or harping on someone is productive...if you have a
remedy, let it fly. I let fly our combined healing effort to free Line and
the woman in Maine for starters.

The reality is that the Californian Mafia have seized political control of our movement and are impervious to our entreaties to promote correct science.

In a scientific not a political sense.

Correct knowledge arrived at scientifically.

And not only does RA promote false science, it promotes failed strategy.

A 'combined healing effort' with hugs and kisses isn't going to change things and isn't going to oust them.

A trick I learned in legal practice is to play the man as well as the ball.

Tasteless, and not English cricket, it's true.

But it works better than playing only the ball.

Low kicking as well as high punching is better than only high punching.

Sorry about this.

Not very nice.

Nor is political struggle.

I live in South Africa.

Our history of struggle remains fresh.

You can almost smell the lost blood here still.


Andy, one more thing:

> In a previous post, I detailed these "epithets," but wanted to convey, but
didn't, how always taking the higher ground is actually more threatening
than unleashing concepts such as sub-professors, and the like.

Politically we occupy the lower ground. RA has seized the hill.

> You want it replaced with the fists and theballs that can help in a case like ICC, and I completely agree with you.

For an instance of battling with 'the fists and the balls … in a  case like ICC', have a look at a different 'case' in the 'ICC', a different ICC:  my draft bill of indictment against Zackie Achmat served at The Hague on 4 January 2007 (PDF, 137 KB).

Mixing it all up, higher ground, lower ground, impeccable formal legal pleading, and the foulest most violent epithets that I could dream up.

Worked a dream.

The controversy in all the papers hooked me prime time slots on national radio, four days running, making the case against ARVs for all the country to hear.

I've learned to go for the shocking and the unpredictable – when the need arises.


Onnie Mary Phuthe in Botswana offered to mediate the problems I've been
pointing up with David Crowe and his RA in this and other fora, and said he
disputed what 'you are writing about him. He also said that you have refused
to discuss the matter.' In reply:

My dear Onnie
Sadly, I'm bound to stand by every word I've written.
See, I'm really careful with truth and lies.
That's the one thing I'm really careful with in my life.
Whereas I'm sorry to have to speak such hard words, but David Crowe is a
compulsive serial liar.
One of his dirty tricks is to put words in the mouth of his adversary,
changing what he originally said, and then dispute it.
Clever hey?
Of course if you don't know what's going on, it sounds good!
But you know it's a kind of compounded lying.
He even tried pulling this stunt on me, Onnie, on me!
If you've been reading my posts at you'll see what I
The difference between Crowe and me is that like a good lawyer (I worked in
the courts almost daily for 20 years) I support my claims with evidence, and
I never ever say anything I can't prove.
If you haven't seen my posts at AME, here's the pick of them (plus one by a
member of the Greens in Alberta, Canada, where Crowe lives):
And after you've read these posts, Onnie, you will really need to tighten
your seatbelt before reading this one:, because
you are not going to believe your eyes, truly you are not!
Once you've read all about our Mr Crowe in these posts, and evaluated the
evidence for yourself, please let me know if you still think he's a person
worth talking to, let alone mediating with!
Considering that he could be arrested by the police and taken away in
hand-cuffs at any time!
Do you think maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, Onnie?
Read all about Crowe's criminal conduct - on multiple scores - while on the
executive of the Alberta Greens and after he was thrown out, archived on my
TIG website at
For some highlights, see
And why on my website, Onnie?
It's because just hours or maybe even minutes after luckily saving the
discussion to a Word file on my computer, one of Crowe's friends, who
controls the Alberta Greens Facebook page where the discussion of Crowe's
crimes and other foul behaviour was talking place, deleted the whole thing,
saying it was time to look forward, and threatening to kick out of the group
anybody raising the issues again.
Imagine that, Onnie!
The sort of friends Crowe keeps!
Imagine a criminal telling the magistrate, Listen Boss, just forget
everything I did, we must look forward now!
Imagine a friend of the criminal working in the police station destroying
the criminal case docket detailing the criminal's many crimes and
threatening to arrest anyone trying to open a new docket to start the case
What's the world coming to, Onnie?!
Please tell Crowe from me that I have nothing to say to him.
Please tell him also that he will be moving on as president of RA sooner or
later this year, I promise.
Cross my heart, Onnie, I promise.
It's just up to him whether he'd like to leave the board quietly now, or not
so quietly later.
It's really up to him.

Dear Brian

> "The only thing we can possibly influence is where we are going from here, and how to best influence those others we interact with."

> I might like to suggest that the best way to do this is put an immediate end to the vitriolic hatred and innuendo within our ranks which seems to be spewed about in great disregard and/or for no damn good reason.

Since I'm the guy you're talking about, I should tell you that I have no 'hatred' for any member of the RA board.

On the contrary, I really love some of those guys.

Nor do I have any personal 'hatred' for David Crowe.

Why should I?

We've never met.

We've had decade-long email correspondence and a telephone call, always perfectly amiable.

He's been helpful to me over the years in the work I do in more ways than I can count.

I specifically credit him in two of my books for this.

But on the RA board he's been a disaster, and as president utterly atrocious.

Whatever his considerable talents, leadership isn't one of them.

It's a personality deficit that's sickeningly obvious.

We all know it, we all talk about it.

It's like I know what I'm good at, and I know what I'm not, and I don't get into what I'm not.

In a military context, Crowe would have been put against a wall for what he did to the Parenzee case.

His conduct as president since then has been appalling hopelessly maladroit.  

Hence my 'vitriolic' style.

I'm not aware of employing 'innuendo' in my polemics; I'm known rather for my plain speech.

And if what I've written about Crowe and his RA over the past few weeks conveys my deepest contempt for him and the useless club around him holding themselves out as the leaders of the international AIDS dissident community, you've definitely got the right message.

Believe me, I write nothing 'for no damn good reason'; every word I use is carefully weighed, even the strong ones popped for bang.


> Ok Anthony, I can concede my perceptions in some instances might have been ill-conceived, but please don't get me wrong.  There may indeed be some things within RA that needs reexamination.  I am also under the impression, do any of us have it right?

Well, Brian, the way I've got it figured is that we need to pick the right horse to back for the race.

HIV is harmless has been a losing proposition for 22 years.

It's time to shift to a more radical strategy now, and one they cannot beat.

And the case they can't beat is that 'HIV' hasn't been isolated, and therefore hasn't been shown to exist.

Even Gallo conceded that purification is obligatory in the Parenzee case.

All the AIDS experts do when push comes to shove, like in court – and anyone claiming otherwise is just ignorant.

The case based on isolation is our sharpest sword, our diamond knife.

Once you concede HIV exists they bury you under a ton of shit.

EPE points out that Duesberg has been refuted many times.

If you have regard to the embarrassing junk he writes in his latest paper he's also a pathetic scientist:

'HIV is a long-established, non-pathogenic passenger virus, neutralized by antibody after asymptomatic, perinatal or non-perinatal infections (just like all other human and animal retroviruses)' – for which he quotes his 2003 paper as authority for this learned proposition.

If any of us made claims like these we'd be the laughing stock of the AIDS dissident community.

But no, being up there with Nelson Mandela as a moral beacon, RA champions Peter as the main man!

Well knowing his science is a joke, and he won't come out to defend it as a real scientist should.

There came a point in the liberation struggle in my country when the African National Congress was constrained to abandon its conciliatory strategy and change to a militant one.

The David Crowe sort in the ANC resisted, and the David Crowe sort clinging to their old planks had to be rudely retired.

Not very nice.

But nor is revolutionary politics.



> I also have now decided to be a co-sponsor of RethingAids2009, with a donation of my own funds to help ensure the event.


> As there is now no doubt that Anthony's voice and concerns have also clearly been heard, I also have no doubt that the issues he has brought up will be discussed, from now until then, as well as by those attending the conference.

Do you mean you have no doubt that there will be an open discussion at the conference of how Rasnick and Crowe contemptuously and dishonestly contrived to exclude an authorized presentation of Eleni's science concerning the missing particle problem at the core of the HIV theory of AIDS; and there will be an open discussion of Etienne's accusation that Eleni is a common thief who 'swiftly appropriated' what she claims to be her original historical scientific work from Stefan Lanka; and there will be an open discussion of his refusal to retract and apologize for this foul charge of his; and there will be an open discussion of Etienne's personal and professional ethics, impeccable or despicable, in swiftly appropriating Eleni's science which he found on the internet, and presenting it as Lanka's (because that's the conclusion he jumped to from the date of the latter's article published online full of errors about the missing particle problem after speaking to Eleni on the telephone for a free biology lesson in which she shared her Copernican knowledge with him), and criticizing it as wrong in a key respect, namely that contrary to what Eleni points out Montagnier really did find a retrovirus, since when it comes to molecular biology he knows more than she does: he's the better expert, why, we only have to look to his famous Friend murine leukaemia virus for all the proof in the world (read all about it at

And since Henry Bauer has just posted a stupid and dishonest notice recording the RA board's support for Crowe, and explicitly approving his sabotage of the Parenzee case in defiance of a RA resolution not to get involved in the case, and his attempt to hijack Roberts's Science letter, again in defiance of a RA resolution, what prospects do you think there are for an open discussion of whether the president of RA should be kicked out as I've advocated?

> I do very much hope Anthony Brink himself and Janine will be able to attend.

On what planet are you living, Michael? After all the rotten fruit that's dropped out the tree I began shaking a few weeks ago?

> I only wish that Eleni and/or Val would be there as well. I hope you, Jonathan, and all of us that can possibly find a way to make it will be there as well.

Christ, are you on tranquilizers?

> This is what we dissidents collectively do have, and I intend to make the best of it, as well as do whatever I can to contribute to the good of all of us.

Is it in the public interest to hear Peter announcing dully yet again, like stuck '78 record, 'HIV is a long-established, non-pathogenic passenger virus, neutralized by antibody after asymptomatic, perinatal or non-perinatal infections (just like all other human and animal retroviruses)'; to have people like you in the audience rising to your feet, clapping your hands loudly for ten minutes and smiling widely with aching cheeks, like it's the best thing you ever heard; and to read the newspapers quoting this as the sort of science the international AIDS dissident movement subscribes to, presented at a dissident AIDS conferences purporting to represent us all, but from which the leading AIDS dissident scientist has been excluded inasmuch as her request that a proxy speaker she chose to present her science was rejected by Rasnick and Crowe for the most manifestly spurious and disingenuous reasons?

When you are well aware, or at least I think you are well aware and are not a scientifically challenged person, that Peter's basic science is childish bullshit and obstructs the Perth Group's bid to resolve the AIDS myth by showing correctly with the best science that there's no virus.

>I very much hope to see further discussion on Anthony's issues regarding Perth. Meanwhile, I urge everyone to contemplate not upon what the dissident movement currently is, but what we would like to see it, including RA, become in the future.

Let's face facts. RA represents the wrong tendency propounding Peter's bad science. Historically it's finished, except to the extent that it's kept afloat by Bob Leppo's capital and some of yours.

But if you like tasty banquets in fancy hotels with red wine flowing, everybody smiling around you and flashbulbs popping for the memories, RA 2009 is where you want to be.

> It is certainly obvious to me that RA could use improvement, as it has gone far beyond it's own humble beginnings of a handful of scientists choosing to make a stand together against their peers. RA is also now far more than just the current board of a dozen or so individuals. It is now a worldwide group, with many lay supporters from around the world.

This is your fundamental misconception: the myth assiduously promoted by Crowe's June 2006 clique that it's a continuation of and is the same entity as the original 'Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis'. This misconception will be disabused in coming weeks.

> The RA board too are beginning to recognize this, and I choose to see the current situation as mere growing pains. It is right and proper that Anthony's issues regarding Perth and Leadership and others issues of RA expanding into a democratic organization now be brought to center stage. Just in having this convention, RA has become larger than just a handful of individuals, and they will be facing some very important issues and making decisions that will affect generations of people to come.

We have seen for ourselves how intransigent and fantastically dishonest these people are. So let's put aside all the flowery talk about growing pains and everything. They've already made their decisions, and the pivotal one was to give the Perth Group a royal kiss-off at the June 2006 meeting and then refuse its request for representation on the board when they got to hear about it. It's been downhill from there.

You should appreciate that the lines have been drawn and that there can never be a reconciliation between two fundamentally contradictory scientific positions and strategic approaches; and we're all choosing sides now.

> I urge all to contemplate the same, what would we like to see RA as well as the dissident community become in the future?

The June 2006 clique will play a diminishing role until it shrivels into nothing like the original Group did by the first half of the nineties. Watch.

> While, according to who one asks, David Crowe's own personal people skills or strategies may or may not make the ideal current president,

They disqualify him entirely.

> his organizational skills are actually very high,

If he has no judgement because he's got no brains and no morals and he cuts the wrong deals with the wrong people and uncritically promotes scientific ideas he knows to be unsound in order to retain his toy throne, his 'organizational skills' render him doubly unqualified to act as our 'president', and doubly prejudicial to our prospects of debunking AIDS with honest, correct science.

> and that alone may be what his own best contribution at this time in history will be. And it may also be exactly what is most needed at this still early stage of RA's growth and expansion of the last few years. The RA group itself has historically barely been funded, and they have already done much with very little. Much much more can and will yet be done.

> Yes, we've seen what RA has done: most recently retrospectively ratifying  Crowe's unauthorized intervention in and sabotage of the Parenzee case as a board-approved venture, the biggest defeat and setback in the history of the AIDS dissident movement. (Both Mbeki and Motlanthe have been briefed.)

> By the way, this is the very first AIDS dissident convention ever, in all of human history,

This is incorrect, and not even the June 2006 clique makes this claim. There was one in Colombia in 1998 (?); another in Uganda in 2000; I convened an informal weekend meeting of dissidents from all over Europe and the UK in Paris in 2007; and I coordinated an important one in Russia last year pertinently focused on the missing particle problem (my brief from the organizers). And if the 'All Russian Parents Assembly' can get the science right, what the fuck is the problem with you Americans?

> and I fully intend to make the very best of it, regardless of other's ability or desire to join in much needed efforts to greater unify us all,

There can be no unity with people who effectively function as counter-revolutionaries and enemy subversives in our ranks.

> though I do hope that all will attend or join in, that we may take an honest inventory not only our strengths, but of our weaknesses, and find meaningful and do-able solutions to problems, instead of dwelling merely on the problems. For every problem, there is a solution.

Our problems under one roof are irresolvable. It's time RA presented itself openly as the Duesberg support group it is (nothing wrong with that, as I've noted before), fundamentally opposed scientifically, politically and strategically to the Perth Group; and to stop dissembling that it speaks for the international AIDS dissident community, when the almost complete majority of scientifically literate AIDS dissidents are with Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who's been shut out of RA, and against Duesberg, who we all consider a most delightful fellow but scientifically hopeless, an anachronism whose science is pure shit and basically on the same level as Gallo's.  Except that even Gallo knows you have to purify.

Only there's small chance of this, because everything from Crowe's mouth is the sickeningly dishonest patter and spin of the small time politician determined to hold power.

Crowe is on record in emails to the Perth Group admitting the pro-Duesberg orientation of RA, and rejecting the Perth Group's request for representation on the basis that it would prejudice Peter. Let's stop pretending: the June 2006 clique exists to promote Peter's AIDS science and defend it from being effective challenged and debunked as scientific rubbish by the Perth Group and its supporters. Peter is the RA board's leading scientist; his long-time ally Rasnick is the conference programme planner; Peter's wife is the conference secretary; the conference is being held in their suburban backyard; it's funded by Peter's funder; RA is led and completely controlled Peter's POLITICAL champion and POLITICAL bodyguard Crowe, who'll do anything to prevent him being toppled from his perch as RA's top scientist; and the board is packed with other scientific and political supporters of Peter. Those few on the board who we know subscribe to Papadopulos-Eleopulos's correct science have been silent in the recent struggle, and function as Peter's supporters by default. Etienne's disgraceful conduct is a special case in a league of its own, and so utterly disgusting that it's hard for me to even talk about.

> From the greatest and fullest perspective, lets identify the problems and weaknesses in our dissident movement, as well as what roadblocks we are or may be facing, and simply contemplate all possible solutions. Contemplating such from empowered perspectives will make the best current solutions obvious to all.

Nearly everyone agrees that the biggest 'roadblock' we face is Crowe, the June 2006 clique, and Duesberg's bad science they knowingly promote and contrive to defend from effective challenge.

And now you announce you're giving your money to these people, and not to Eleni for the conduct of her historically pivotal experiments.

Just unbelievable.


> Anthony … Your obsession with David Crowe seems exceedingly irrational and emotional in essence - rather than objective.

I assure you, Sadun, that my focus on Crowe is highly objective in all senses of the word.

Please don't mistake my spleen for confused lack of purpose, confused tactics and strategy. I'm very clear.

Until the abortion of the Parenzee case caused by Crowe's furtive intrusion to introduce a harmless virus defence mid-way stream, which confounding development the judge seized on to avoid giving the revolutionary judgment the Perth Group's evidence was impelling him to, I took the view that the Californians and their RA organization were simply irrelevant, completely irrelevant in the world.

I'd taken no part in discussion forums for many years. I just got on with it, as the sweat-soaked corpus of work archived on my site attests.

The Parenzee case brought home to me what an enormous mistake I'd made thinking our internal politics were unimportant.

I'd been intensely aware of them a decade ago, but looked away thinking there was just nothing I could do.

It seemed all too hopeless.

Your own REMARKABLE intervention helped fire me up.

(I'll always think the world of you for it.)

I should have been quicker to appreciate the threat to the success of our movement posed by the Duesberg group when Harvey Bialy (Peter's friend and biographer, and even more fervent and ignorant scientific supporter than Rasnick) screwed up Eleni's pre-absorption experiment in South Africa (Rasnick had some involvement) that were agreed in my presence and minuted at the second meeting of Mbeki's AIDS Advisory Panel in Johannesburg in 2000.

You can read the dismal story here.

I was invited over to Sam Mhlongo's house to meet with Harvey again when in the country in October 2001, puffed up with grand historic purpose, and telling me why the Perth Group were missing the point and such like.

When the useless results of the experiments he screwed up came out, Harvey phone me in the blackest depression over what a total failure they'd been.

Later he claimed they were brilliant and put them up on his blog.

I should have realized then that whatever we do, wherever we live, no matter how distant, the Californian Mafia and their stupid henchmen will always come charging in uninvited and screwing everything up.

Parenzee confirmed it.

This accounts for the hard attention I'm currently giving our internal problems, and obviously this kind of thing is exactly the opposite of a bedtime lullaby.

I certainly haven't finished what I started.

There will be a lot more tears before I'm done.

The RA board certainly wouldn't choose someone as a president who will go against their wishes. So regarding your intentions, it matters little who the current president is and what he/she does. As long as the board doesn't change, whoever becomes the president will be someone who respects the limitations determined by the board members. As long as Duesberg et al.'s political influence remains as strong as it is now, the probability of the board choosing someone who'll disregard Duesberg's science and make decisions based solely on Perth's science is very low. This is the current RA. It's basis is structured in a way that ensures Duesberg's influence, and getting rid of that influence requires the modification of the fundamental structure, be it through constructive or destructive actions.

I don't expect RA to swing behind Perth, Sadun.

I want it identified, and self-identified for what it is: a Peter Duesberg support group, which is fine, like I said.

In the process I've started, Peter is safe, Rasnick is safe, because we know where they're at. At least they're up-front.

All and any other fence-sitters, pretenders and opportunists are going to feel the pressure.

You seem to have chosen a destructive attitude, with the non-stop attacks and so on.

This is quite correct, Sadun.

My question is this: Am I right in believing that you basically plan to harm the RA to such a degree that it will be reduced to nothing (almost) so that it can be restructured or replaced by a new authority?

As nearly all of us know, RA is selling a lie, the lie that HIV exists as a harmless passenger virus.

As a bearer of false news it is doomed.

Yes, I propose to reduce RA in the military sense of the word.

There is no talk of any 'new authority'. That's not what any of us have in mind, Sadun, some sort of similarly structured rival to RA as an American political organization with its own stupid lawless cowboy President Bush.

But there is plenty of talk about a realignment of lay dissident activist energy behind and around correct AIDS dissident science, strategically correct AIDS dissident science too, the science we know to be correct and effective, the science they couldn't crack in Parenzee.

The other questions: If yes, then can it be that if you show your cards and declare your intentions clearly (i.e. "If this and that doesn't happen then I will destroy you.") this might spare everybody some time, energy and pain? If you can convince them that they have no chance against your ingenious destructive plans -as you seem to believe- then they might give up on their own, without the need for all the conflicts and destruction and pain? Or is the secrecy crucial to your plans' efficiency? But even then, maybe a very undetailed revelation of your intentions can enable a smoother transition and make all this easier on all levels (less time, effort, pain etc.)? What do you think?

The false science that RA champions will not defeated with messages in diplomatic bags, as I've said before, but by militant engagement. That's all I want to say for now.

By the way, I think it would be nice if the Perth Group could give more official information on their website about the experiments they intend to perform and how much money they exactly need/so far have. It is very unrealistic to expect "HIV protagonists to contribute to their cost" as stated on their website, when the HIV protagonists somehow seem to be able to convince themselves (or at least talk about it that way) that the PG is in this "AIDS business" for getting attention and making profits. I suppose they don't seriously expect anything like that to happen anyway though, so my is probably moot. But I believe it would still increase their chances for being taken seriously by real potential financiers.

If I remember right, they said they need about 50 K.



I was fully aware of Crowe's print of the book for the PG.

Of which I'm a listed co-author.

Consequently there is no question of failing to investigate and 'forgivable errors in his current perceptions'.

His help in printing and marketing the book is totally immaterial to my complaint against him concerning his conduct from June 2006 on.

I have said before that he is a resourceful, helpful bloke.

But running RA he has been an unmitigated disaster.

Someone mentioned how he's a textbook case of the Peter Principle in practice.

How Crowe has been great at some things and atrocious at others.

Jonathan just reminded us of another disgusting incident: how Crowe commandeered Liam Scheff's public statement over the ICC horror he'd uncovered, changing it materially, wasting a week's work on it by Scheff and Beth Ely, disgusting them both to the extent that Ely resigned as RA PR officer, and responding to Liam's  complaints with a string of abusive emails.

I've said before that Crowe is a sack of shit.

He forwards you entirely irrelevant private emails containing private communications about private things to publicize, and you do.

What are we to think of this, Michael.

I mean about you!

Whenever Crowe is criticized, he resorts to the same infantile tactic.

Didn't I help you, aren't we friends?

He did it to Paul Last.

He did it to me.

He did it to Johan Beaurain.

He does it to the PG.

I mentioned some heartbreak to him that I was experiencing around 2001.

Stand by for Crowe to put this on the net as well.

Or to ask you to.

What a wanker he is.


Hey Michael

Actually I was involved in the case.

Before the hearing began I had two or three lengthy telephone calls with Borick at the PG's request, and communicated with him further by email via a third party.

He asked me to draw up his questions for leading the PG in evidence.

I declined to do so, but sent him what he needed to read to understand their position.

It looks like Crowe is asking you to help create the impression that he didn't prevail on Borick to change the defence strategy.

> But back to the case, of course David naturally discussed with Kyle and Parenzees sister their own concerns and their own takes on what might or might not be helpful, and David very well may even have encouraged or suggested they relay something to Borick, but ultimately, there is no evidence, none whatsoever, presented by David's accusers that David Crowe had led the attorney in any direction, or that David had any effect on him or the directions of the case whatsoever. The accusations are empty, and no evidence has been presented. … Sure, he may have influenced it by hoping that some message or thought of his own could get to Attorney Borick through encouraging, or discussing it with or through influencing others with access to Borick

Crowe's email exchange with the PG shows that he imagined himself to be the master of the case; and communicating through third parties made sure that Borick changed tack from the two witness, crisp issue case Eleni had conceived and was successfully prosecuting.

He records:

'My concern was that your testimony would be wonderful, but would be undercut by your lack of status according to the yardstick likely to be used by the judge.'

'I was indeed very concerned that you and Eleni would not be accepted as expert witnesses.'

'I felt you needed backup.'

'That is why I felt you needed backup.'

If I might interpolate here, just reading the entire exchange again makes my blood boil, the stupidity, the dishonesty, the vulgarity, the little emotional games he tries setting up to win.

Makes me puke, and then want to reach for a meat cleaver.

(I don't know whether these sorts of reactions will be found in the DSM IV, Michael.)

The worst of it is that given the opportunity again in a case testing the existence of HIV on the evidence of the scientist who's science it is, the President of RA, fancying himself the man in charge, who knows more about virology than the PG does*, will blunder in again, for the same reasons, urging Maniotis be led as well to dull the focus with his ridiculous retroids, De Harven to do the same with his ridiculous HERVs, and who knows who else with their garbled second hand take on Eleni's science, and Duesberg, Rasnick and Bialy to contradict it completely since wow they've got the credentials and gee we've all got to work together.

Christ he's useless.


*Eleni apparently suggested Anthony Brink as a substitute. David
Rasnick felt this was not appropriate, and I agree. Val and Eleni did
all the original reading and analysis of thousands of papers. The
Perth Group theory also includes their beliefs about the causes of
"AIDS", most controversially exposure to semen. Additionally some
people may want to ask whether the fact that the Perth Group has not
questioned the existence of other major viruses means that they

believe they exist, have inadequate information, or that this is a
strategic decision. The originators of the theory need to be there to
respond to such questions.

A classic piece of Crowe disingenuousness, a dishonest ex post facto justification.

Semen and other major viruses had nothing to do with the subject, her subject, that Eleni wanted presented: the missing particle problem of the HIV theory of AIDS.

If Crowe wanted to ask questions on these other issues, I would have answered them.

The 'originator of the theory' was satisfied that I could provide a good exposition of it, as I'd just done at an international multi-lingual AIDS dissident conference in Russia.

The self-billed boss of the international AIDS dissident movement over-ruled her.

Being the boss, being the clever boy.

Imagine this for the history books: how this mincing prick over-ruled Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos!


Janine wrote:

> I shudder often at Anthony's attacks - he uses words I would never

Let it never be forgotten:

Crowe was the organizing energy behind the formation of the June 2006
clique. He made sure the Perth Group was not invited to join its board;
voted with the rest to blow them off at the June meeting as scientific
has-beens; rejected their subsequent plea for representation on the board on
the basis that this would prejudice Peter and his childishly false science
about harmless retroviruses and DNA chain terminators; sabotaged the
historic Parenzee case by persuading his counsel to rather go with Peter's
childishly false science about harmless retroviruses halfway through the
trial; organized a conference in Peter's suburban backyard showcasing
Peter's childishly false science about harmless retroviruses and DNA chain
terminators, also South African AIDS epidemiology full of childish mistakes
making it easy for our enemies to get his latest paper knocked right off the
Medical Hypotheses homepage, and probably soon withdrawn completely;
allowing Peter's risibly clueless ally Rasnick to pick the topics and the
speakers, who naturally keeps the missing virus problem off the conference
agenda with Crowe's blessing, because why this would show up Peter's
childishly false science about harmless retroviruses and at the same time
make him look an equal fool for just going along with Peter's childishly
false science about harmless retroviruses not actually knowing what the
hell's going on, and also he wouldn't want to offend Peter and Bob funding
Peter and Peter's conference; rejected Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos's request
that her nominated, authorized (and experienced) proxy speaker present her
seminal historic discovery of the missing virus problem at the June 2006
clique's 2009 conference; then when the shit hit the fan asked Etienne to
present a bastardized mangled wrong version of Eleni's seminal historic
discovery of the missing virus problem without her authority, which Etienne
picked up off the internet and swiftly appropriated, only claiming to know
better than she does when it comes to microbiology because look Montagnier
undoubtedly did find a retrovirus, there it is, only it's a human endogenous
retrovirus not an exogenous one, you only have to look; and as president of
his organization Crowe hasn't had a word to say about Etienne's obscene
claim that Eleni 'swiftly appropriated' her seminally important, historic
discovery of the missing virus problem from Stefan Lanka, which obscene
claim Etienne will obviously repeat at the conference, if asked, for all the
world's newspapers to report, namely that Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is a
common thief, since he's declined my urgent private appeal to him to retract
and apologize (I'm keeping Mbeki in the loop).

When the history of AIDS is written decades or centuries from now, Crowe
will be remembered for his efforts to impede the work of the Nicolaus
Copernicus of our time, since gee we must all work together.

And you wonder why I despise him utterly, Janine.

I wonder if Raz et al feel "snubbed" by Eleni and Val? I would think it would be possible. Like C said about Anthony considering them idiots, Raz, Dr. P. and all likely consider that Eleni and Val also consider them to be idiots too, which is why they did not show up. And if that's the case, who wants to be around someone who thinks you are an idiot?

For the record.

The first sparks between Rasnick and the Perth Group and me flashed many years ago when I was taxing him on whether AZT is indeed a DNA chain terminator as he and Peter claim in every paper.

He referred me to a study reporting AZT's incorporation into cellular DNA.

Since according to about two dozen studies I have in hard copy, AZT isn't triphosphorylated to any significant extent and therefore cannot be incorporated into DNA, I asked the Perth Group's opinion of the study Rasnick cited.

They pointed out that the authors had used a wholly inappropriate assay in drawing their conclusion, and detailed why.

When I conveyed this to Rasnick, he lost his temper and snapped, 'Why can't they speak for themselves? Why do they have to speak through other people?' and refused to debate the issue any further.

Rasnick and Peter are still ignorantly calling AZT a DNA chain terminator, in a display of disgraceful scientific ignorance.

Much worse than making scientific fools of themselves, they dangerously concede GlaxoSmithKline's false core claim about AZT's biochemistry: that it's triphosphorylated, incorporated into DNA, and terminates it (just as, never having properly applied their minds to the matter, they foolishly concede Montagnier and Gallo's false claims to have isolated 'HIV' in the early eighties).

Throwing away the best weapons of attack against the orthodoxy's drug and the orthodoxy's virus: it doesn't work and it doesn't exist.

So that when the molecular pharmacology of AZT comes before a judge one day, GSK can subpoena them both and compel them to testify on oath, 'Yes, your honour, AZT sure is triphosphorylated and incorporated into DNA thereby terminating it as we say in all our papers, and GSK says in their package insert, and don't you go paying any attention to those Australians; we're Americans with PhDs, one of us a pharmaceutical biochemist, so we know much better about things like this than they do.'

So that likewise should Mbeki one day be prosecuted at the instance of the AIDSTruth mob, both can be subpoenaed and compelled to testify on oath against him: 'No, your honour, Mr Mbeki is quite wrong to say that 'HIV' has never been isolated and shown to exist; it most certainly has been shown to exist, and it's been shown to exist by the best method known to science: by wow cloning a genetic fragment that comes from who the hell knows where. Don't you go paying any attention to those Australians, your honour, we're Americans with PhDs, one of us one of the world's leading retrovirologists, so we know much better about things like this than they do.'

But I guess if you think the case against the HIV theory of AIDS will be won wringing your hands with a frown or smiling at everyone with a flower in your hair and quoting Swedish poets and maybe also cooing words of love in a tie-dye T shirt with a Peace sign on the back, what does science matter?

As far as snubbing is concerned, the snub was in Eleni's and my direction.

As I've noted here before, Rasnick emailed a personal invitation to attend the conference to my girlfriend Maria working across the table from me, not knowing of our relationship.

Rasnick had been combing Peter's email address book for people to invite, he explained to her, and found her email address there.

Since Peter and I have corresponded, my email address was in there too, but Rasnick deliberately passed over it.

Not only did he not want me addressing the conference and blowing his and Peter's virus out the sky, he didn't want me attending and maybe asking terribly embarrassing questions from the floor.

Rasnick mentioned in his invitation email that the conference programme was still provisional, and when I had an immediate look found it still thin.

On receiving Rasnick's invitation to speak on the HIV tests only, and not the heart of her science the missing particle problem, Eleni stated her reasons for demurring – too far, too tiring, too expensive, and poor timing – and for nominating me to speak in her stead on the evidence for the existence of 'HIV', just as I'd done on her behalf in Russia.

Rasnick rejected Eleni's reasons and request out of hand, without even the courtesy of a reply.

Three weeks later, when pressed for a response, Rasnick conveyed his rejection, claiming 'People would rather hear it from her directly' (he didn't consult any 'people'; he was just repeating in knee-jerk fashion what he'd said to me many years earlier, mentioned above); falsely claimed that I couldn't be/couldn't have been accommodated as a speaker because the programme was complete (in truth, it hadn't been complete at the material time, as Rasnick had said and I had seen); then had Crowe back him up in his rejection of Eleni's request with a bunch of transparently fatuous pretexts, best described as unbelievably stupid and characteristically dishonest.

If Peter won't even talk to Eleni – he literally turned his back on her when she approached him to confer at Mbeki's second AIDS Advisory Panel meeting in Johannesburg, and walked out the room when she began addressing the experiments discussion sub-committee about a protocol to isolate 'HIV' (I was right there to witness this) – what conclusions would any reasonable person draw about how deeply personally and professionally threatened he and Rasnick feel by the much more thorough-going, meticulously accurate, and radical scientific critique of this woman, who doesn't even have an undergraduate degree in biology? And why they want her/her representative kept as far away from their conference as possible, with Crowe conniving in this, since hey Peter's got all the big credentials, Bob's paying, and Bob's behind Peter, and let's keep everything smooth and Canadian.

In which regard, let me report a trick I learned at university studying Corporate Law.

When as a company board you want to shut out dissident stock holders unhappy with your show, you pick the most inconvenient venue for your AGM, like in a remote one-horse town or expensive city, making it practically very difficult for these individual dissidents to attend, and to discourage them just by dint of cunningly selecting a faraway venue for the meeting. Of course, the board's expenses are all paid, just like the RA board's hotel expenses will be covered and their conference attendance fee will be waived, likewise for the speakers Rasnick carefully selected to conform to his and Peter's harmless retrovirus line. But not for the rest of us 'outsiders' as Rasnick calls us. No, we 'outsiders' we must pay big tom from our weaker foreign purses for the immense privilege and edification of listening to them speak.

By the way, Celia said Rasnick explained to her his rejection of Eleni's request that I present her science on her behalf 'because on each subject he wishes to have the pre-eminent expert. All sounds perfectly reasonable.' And she repeats this jive in her latest mail.


Is international criminal defence barrister Chris Black the pre-eminent legal expert on AIDS law, better able to talk to the subject than I am, with my direct involvement in four major AIDS litigations? And counting Parenzee a fifth, but with relatively peripheral involvement, in which case trial counsel consulted me several times and looked to me to prepare and draw his questions to lead the Perth Group's evidence in chief.

Is Peter the pre-eminent expert better able to talk to AIDS epidemiology in South Africa than I am, having been in the trenches night and day here for approaching 15 years, having started it all and put him and the entire AIDS controversy on the international political map by swing Mbeki with Debating AZT, and having written in-depth critiques of the methodology and findings of national 'HIV prevalence' reports? And concerning the statistics, is Peter the pre-eminent expert better able to talk to AIDS statistics in South Africa than my comrade Chris Rawlins with his accountant's miss-nothing hawk eyes, a genius at spotting the anomalies in the densest number jungle?

Is Rasnick the pre-eminent expert on ARVs, better able to talk about ARV drugs than I am, as the author of four books on the subjects of AZT and nevirapine (, about the first of which Peter said he 'couldn't have done a better job', and which Rasnick himself judged a 'masterpiece', and concerning my knowledge of ARVs generally the Perth Group reckon I know more about the subject at the clinical level than they do. (I'm obviously not referring to  protease inhibitors, about which Rasnick's the king: I'm talking about nucleoside analogues and NNRTIs in more common use.) Does Rasnick actually think he knows more about these drugs than I do? That he's the pre-eminent expert on ARVs, and that relative to him I'm not a master of the field, but an apprentice at his feet?

Rasnick's rationale for shutting the Perth Group out, which Celia found so winsome, was a manifestly phony ex post facto manufactured justification, and Crowe was only too happy to go along with this to ensure a smiling jamboree centred around Peter, the star of his RA show, telling everyone ludicrously 'like a stuck '78 record [as I described recently], "HIV is a long-established, non-pathogenic passenger virus, neutralized by antibody after asymptomatic, perinatal or non-perinatal infections (just like all other human and animal retroviruses)"; to have everyone in the audience rising to their feet, clapping their hands loudly for ten minutes and smiling widely with aching cheeks, like it's the best thing they ever heard; and to read the newspapers quoting this as the sort of science the international AIDS dissident movement subscribes to, presented at a dissident AIDS conferences purporting to represent us all.'

I omitted to mention in my recent recapitulation of how Crowe has consistently obstructed the work of the Perth Group and the ventilation of its radical, decisive missing virus critique, how he also rejected their request, expressly supported by one of the defence's financial donors, to apply his funds to the purchase of the historically important transcripts of the Perth Group's evidence and cross-examination to put on his (Crowe's) website, at which he was archiving the transcripts of the case online – since he figured it was more important for the world to read Gallo's and the other prosecution witness's testimony and cross-examination than the Perth Group's. Perhaps because he'd already decided that their evidence was useless, not being backed with a pile of PhDs and other honours like Peter's, as he later stated.

Leading one to ask.

On an objective assessment of Crowe's conduct since his formation of the June 2006 RA clique, who has been the Perth Group's most consistent, effective and destructive political opponent: John Moore or David Crowe?


Sadun said:

> If I remember correctly Etienne didn't say that they "stole" it. Just that they weren't the first or something. There is a significant difference.

No, Sadun, you don't remember correctly.

On 28 July Etienne posted to this forum his email just sent me privately:

> You give too much credit to the PG for the "HIV does not exist"
approach! It was not their idea !!! It was that of Stefan Lanka, in
1994 (?). And the PG swiftly appropriated it !!!...

So you see Sadun, he did say they 'stole it'.

There is no 'significant difference' between saying they 'stole it' and they 'swiftly appropriately … Stefan Lanka['s] … idea' which he published on the internet 'in 1994'.

And the worst thing about it all, Sadun, is that Etienne refuses to apologize for falsely alleging they 'stole it'; and even though this foul allegation of his is spat by an RA board member and moreover a senior member being its past president, the current president of RA Crowe and about the only other member actually saying and writing anything, which is to say currently taking an interest in RA affairs, Henry Bauer, are happy to let this foul allegation stand unrebuked.

This is 'RA' for you, Sadun.

These are the ethics of the people in charge of us!

You might want to run outside and grab a clothes peg for your nose!

Etienne was recuperating from a serious car accident in April , so he didn't attend the June 2006 conference to which Crowe invited him but not the Perth Group (or me) in order to have Etienne instated as regent king for a show of scientific inclusivity, while deliberately excluding Peter's principal radical scientific challengers so as not to offend Peter, as he later explained. (Peter turns his back on Eleni when she tries speaking with him, and walks out the room when she speaks.)  

It appears from Janine and Rod's posts that this June 2006 statement by the Perth Group in which they staked and demonstrated their priority regarding the missing virus problem document was discussed at the conference.

Maybe Etienne missed it because he wasn't there.

If he did, he can read it now.

Etienne, will you kindly retract and apologize now please. (How would you feel if someone had levelled a similar allegation at you?!)

Sadun reckons 'apologizing for inaccurate information might be helpful for moving things forward and creating a more friendly and productive atmosphere', and you yourself say 'we should all stick to the facts!'

Please, Etienne.

Sadun you say:

> And as far as I know there is also no reliable evidence that … that D. Crowe is "a sack full of shit"... .

Please review the abundant evidence tabled in The Unbelievable Mediocrity of David Crowe: Why RA has the president it deserves, and let me know whether you find my charge that 'D. Crowe' is a 'sack of shit' unsupported by 'reliable evidence' that he's a 'sack of shit'.


> Many people on hivaidsparadigm may be deeply disturbed by the tone of
many recent postings, but have not wished to wade into the vitriol of
the debate. If that's you, what can you do?

Well, first, I understand your desire to stay out of the fight (also
my choice). There are still many things that you could do.

You could send a supportive email to me (
which I can forward to the board of RA and the organizers of RA 2009,
if appropriate. You can include constructive criticism as well. Due
to the circumstances I will keep such emails confidential, but I can
assure you that they will be appreciated.

You could also register for RA 2009 or talk to me about getting
involved as a volunteer with Rethinking AIDS. The organization is,
after all, the sum of the people involved, and then some.

David Crowe

Crowe pulled the same feeble stunt after being booted out the Greens board!

More soon!


A concerned comrade posed some questions arising from my 'Crowe for the history book' post (copied at the foot of this mail in plain black font), which I'd copied on to him.

> If this is all correct, and I assume it is, then what do you think the motivation might be for Rasnick, Duesberg, Crowe et al in putting forward false science that can be rebutted by the hiv advocates, thereby discrediting the anti-hiv movement? Simple bias for their own bad research, fear of losing face, honest belief that their science is more correct, acting on behalf of the hiv advocates to sabotage the anti-hiv struggle?

You ask a most valuable question.

Here's my take.

Rasnick sees AIDS is primarily political, and talks this way.

He's a chemist who's never gone into the biological minutiae, so he just goes along with Duesberg on whose wagon he's hitched his long ride.

In the witness stand he'd be a self-contradicting nightmare: see my TIG POSITION STATEMENT ON 'HIV' at the top of in which I quote him.

On the finer points, Peter appears to have simply stopped thinking and reading two decades ago.

He took Montagnier and Gallo at their word in their claims to have found a new retrovirus and has clearly never applied his mind to Eleni's exhaustive examination and refutation of these claims.

I'm not one for pop psychobabble, but he seems to have a sort of block on this (Michael Nitsche in Berlin opined alike ten years ago).

He just believes in HIV.

He won't engage on the leading question: the isolation issue.

Turns his back on Eleni when she approaches to speak with him, walks out the room when she begins talking about it.

He's stuck in the past.

Crowe is playing it like the puny wheeling and dealing small town politician he is (see

He knows there's no virus, but he believes it's better to attack AIDS with the Duesberg critique than the Perth one.

He's said so up front. Commencing my attack on Crowe and his RA, a supporter here in Cape Town posted a complaint about the exclusion of the missing virus problem from the RA conference agenda.

He said, 'I believe the isolation issue IS the central issue, and I know that many others agree.'

Crowe replied:

'I believe that it is one of the important issues, but not the only one. First of all, for many people, arguing that HIV does not exist as the first step towards deconstructing the dogma is many steps too far. You have to be prepared to start by questioning the evidence for the accuracy of the tests, sexual transmission, the toxicity of the drugs, and so on. Eventually, somewhere down this road, the light will go on. Some people may be able to start right here, but not everyone. I think it is a strategic error to put all our eggs in this one basket. In addition, this amounts to the imposition of a new dogma, which I will not support. I have even seen some more radical supporters of "HIV Existence is the only issue" want to force Dr. Duesberg and others to recant. That is not only distasteful from a human perspective given what Peter has contributed to the movement and the sacrifices he has made but it would be to behave in exactly the same way that the establishment currently does against all of us.

To put it another way, it's like an atheist parachuting down through time and landing in a medieval village in France and starting a discussion about whether God exists. I would hazard a guess that many people whose eyes are just opening would have difficulty with this being the only approach.'

This is the fundamental strategic difference with the Perth approach and Crowe's.

Crowe wants to keep the missing virus problem out of public view.

Only he a few a few others are clever enough to understand it , he thinks.

I've repeatedly pointed out: If you concede HIV exists, the enemy will bury you under a ton of shit.

This is why as a lawyer I support Perth in their sage strategic focus on a crisp technical point on which to make the whole case pivot.

If no HIV, all the rest becomes irrelevant.

Crowe doesn't have the brains to see it.

Crowe calls this massive fundamental contradiction in strategic conception and approach between us a 'small difference'.

To be honest, I've grown to loathe him: his disingenuous and mendacious speech patterns, his childish personality, variously limp and defensive, at other times domineering and abusive, the way he constantly personalizes hard objective issues; and generally his prodigious all-round intellectual mediocrity.

He's strained hard to downplay his ruinous involvement in the Parenzee case, as if he wasn't advising Borick to change strategy.

The Gallo cross-examination transcript reveals that Borick wasted time on the Montagnier/Gallo stolen virus issue, one of Crowe's enduring but pointless interests: a legal dead-end if ever there was, and strategically self-destructive, because the defence had been erected on a no-virus basis, but Crowe gets Borick to press Gallo on the stolen virus.

The spectacular stupidity!

Crowe admits to Maniotis that he was working with Borick to draw the further appeal papers; and they are all Duesbergian, readily rebuttable. And he invites Maniotis to be a witness in the further appeal, because why in Crowe's opinion Maniotis has got a better idea of what's going on scientifically than the Perth group has: 'I'm currently helping Kevin write some of his arguments for the appeal request. Hopefully there are no problems with permission to appeal. I believe he's requesting that the judges authorize a commission which would then pay for our side to send witnesses etc. Feel like a free trip to Australia?'
Thanks to Crowe, Parenzee sits rotting in jail today.

> I ask because there still seems to me to be no clear reason for this disagreement. One side or the other is correct. Either a virus of some sort is detected by these tests or it isn't. One would expect that scientists who disagree on such a thing would have a debate on the facts and come to a conclusion. But this refusal to debate or these childish reactions to it disturb me and indicates something else is going on, which is not out in the open which is why we never get anywhere. The real issues is not revealed. At least to me.

Crowe's premium value is unity.

We must all hold hands and sing together at the fireside.

There's room for all views, he insists.

We can 'believe' what we like – the word he uses, as if we're an Oddfellows society, in which the correctness and uniformity of our views aren't paramount.

It's fine by him if we have radically contradictory scientific positions and strategies, since being in charge he gets to call which ones to be invoked and applied.

This is because RA is not a scientific organization, but primarily a lay political group with a bunch of confused second-rate second-hand scientists brought on board for show.

The best scientists are kept out.

Crowe wants us gathering from all around the world in front of him, smiling at each other and at him as he gives us his little opening speech at a conference covering the same tired old nowhere shit.

The all important subject of 'HIV' is naturally left off the programme.

In other words establishing and advancing scientific truth isn't Crowe's main object.

It's fighting AIDS together.

We must all go out and fight 'AID$ Inc'!

We must fight it!

With him the Eagle Scout and his knots saying, Come on boys, not far to go!

Focussing on our crucial hard scientific differences isn't vital in his view.

No, he says 'we should not magnify our differences' because 'despite small differences we have a major common goal. The problem sometimes is that if you take a microscope to the differences you can make them look much bigger and more significant they are.'

Our 'major common goal' is to fight AIDS!

And 'I don't believe in an inward strategy which bases so much on an internal debate that the outside world will pay no attention to. But I don't believe I'm standing in anyone's way if they think this is critically important.'

In truth, Crowe has done everything possible to sideline the Perth Group and their correct science and promote Duesberg's bad science instead, knowing it's bad.

Makes you think.

Others do, because I'm constantly batting off suggestions from allies that Crowe is a mole.

I always answer: 'I'm a lawyer and I don't see the evidence; I can't work by intuition.'

They insist, pointing to how extraordinarily successful Crowe has been in kicking the Perth Group down. 

I mentioned several examples in my email to you (below). Then I remembered more:

He rejected the Perth Group's request to post a little notice on his RA website about their work.

He never solicited their input regarding Gallo's et al criticism of Celia Farber's article in Harper's.

He never solicited their input regarding RA's The AIDS Trap brochure; and then after it was presented rejected their concern expressed about the grossly unscientific and potentially tortious misstatements in (stand by for a detailed statement), and refused to publish their disclaimer, having regard to the fact that RA purports to include them as being among its two and a half thousand members.

I also made a note about an important email from Crowe to the major dissident activists in May last year, in which he didn't even bother including Turner as representative of the Perth Group; in his estimation they evidently weren't important enough.

Nor does he want an 'internal debate' since he reckons it would be pointless and irrelevant, one 'the outside world will pay no attention to'.

Indeed the President imperiously announces, 'After considerable thought I have decided that a public discussion of the disagreements between Dr. Val Turner and myself would not be productive. For one thing, I have no idea whether everyone on this list wants to watch such a spectacle, and secondly I don't see that compromise is likely when some remarks may be aimed at the audience, not at each other.'

The last thing he wants is an open debate of our fundamental scientific differences because this would implode RA as a bunch of scientific incompetents and drones, and leave only the Perth Group standing.

And where would that leave RA President David Crowe?

Back to selling cellphones in Calgary.



PS: Claus Jensen penned this tight analysis  yesterday:

With all due respect, I think the misconception is that the issue is all about pushing Perth's non-isolation argument. 

There is no need to push this argument, since the opposite view only has one single proponent – well, 1 1/2 until Dr. Rasnick has made up his mind.

As a result, the discrimination against Perth's non-isolation argument has morphed into deploring it as a poor strategy by people who have unilaterally decided that they are more savvy politically and legally than others. 

It is an exceedingly slippery slope for a group whose original aim was Scientific Reappraisal to dismiss good scientific arguments  because they are considered impracticable by some, and it has become emblematic of the political rot now eating away at what remains of RA's scientific integrity. 

Those who insist on the importance of this discussion internally, quite apart from the issue of public strategy, are now constantly being caricatured as religious fanatics who want to impose scientific tyranny on RA, or even better as immature time-wasters obsessed with purely academic issues deemed unimportant by the heroic organisers, who act and accomplish rather than talk.      

The real problem goes much deeper than the isolation question. The brutal, inescapable fact is that the best,   most rigorous science is not being put forward in publications like the AIDSTrap, the Letter to Science and other recent stuff. The contents of these things are sloppy, amateurish, self-contradictory and seemingly totally ignorant of how the Opposition has evolved in response to the same old "denialist canards" that are being mindlessly trotted out by the dignified deniosaurs of RA and their favoured newbies at the time.



Brother Andrew

A few emails (from many more) might clue some of you in to what has been the most vile, uncalled for, character assassination I've ever witnessed.

Have you been suckered by his claims and the post on the RA website that it's all just ugly petty personal?

In military campaigns, in corporate commerce and in team sports, one has successful leaders and one has unsuccessful leaders.

Unsuccessful leaders, even if they've tried very hard, are relieved.

Do you  not agree with my charge that , on an objective assessment Crowe has been an unsuccessful leader?

Or do you consider that in frustrating and obstructing the Perth Group and their correct science at every opportunity available, he's been an extraordinarily successful leader.

If you concur that he's been no good, do you agree that if he won't go he has to be pushed.

Even if it's not nice.

What are your thoughts, Brother Andrew?



My dear Jes

And well this David Crowe situation is a little out of hand.

Would you agree that situation for the guys inside the Moncada Barracks in '53, Castro's assault also felt a little out of hand?

And I seriously don't see how the concerns and criticisms of maybe three people... (who are remotely active about it) are really gonna change or sway the confidence of many.

Are you possibly one of the many looking up with adoring eyes to our Dear Leader?

Dressed the same as everyone else with the same blank fixed expression?

You, Jes?

Are you one of them?

If it were to... well this would have been put into action by now... What I can say... Is that it sure got us all interacting again... even brought me out of the dregs of disillusion... and yes some of us are disillusioned. We are tired of spinning our wheels. We are ready for some action.

Do you think that's maybe a bit how they felt in Germany in '33?

Disillusioned and looking for some action!

And a group of total strangers have managed to shake this whole scene up more in the last year... than anything has in some time... and thank god cause I think they might be onto something...

Would you disagree madam that everything they've touched has turned to shit, and just wait till you see what's coming up next week?

And that contrariwise that they've shaken nothing up whatsoever?

Apart from inspiring the party faithful and filling them with a whole new zest for life.

Now is not the time to be consumed with a bunch of "Petty" yes "Petty" Bullshit... I know things were done it was offensive feelings are hurt...blah blah blah... but not nearly as corrupt and offensive as the assault that has been laid out before my eyes just sitting here the last couple weeks.... Far more disillusioning than I am willing to admit. Personally as someone who knows enough of all the parties... Its like watching a bunch of ego's batting it out on the field.

This pains me more than I can tell you, Jes, it really does.

You really do.

And I am sorry but as a person trapped and living in this monstrosity of a paradigm... I weigh up who has done the most.... who has the best approach... Who is making an effort... Who is DOING... And WHAT can actually be done...

Among us lay activists here, who has done the most in terms of original research, writing and knowledge generation, and in terms of getting us registered politically in an unbelievably big way?

If it's not too immodest of me to ask you, my dear?

"House of Numbers" is HUGE... this is the most powerful approach to date. One everyone can grasp... and with the bulk of the mainstream parties digging their own holes, admitting the flaws! Its fucking amazing. Here something is being done... (These guys have won the highest award in almost every film festival they have been to) I urge anyone who can go to New York to go and support it for EMMY consideration.... Many here were a part of that... Much gratitude...

Oh we all agree that HoN is huge. Make no mistake about that.

Wasting our energy on a bunch of useless crap when we have a golden opportunity to make use of some serious publicity is futile, and counterproductive. SAD REALLY. At some point I am really gonna have to ask myself why the stronger we get... the more silliness seems to seep in and try to impeded progress... and who is truly responsible for that at the end of the day. And why we are even wasting our time with it.

Have you ever wasted time addressing a work or family problem or cleaning up after the puppy, dear? It's sad really.

Make sure you invite me if you move... this shit is boring... futile.... and I don't really see how all this BS is doing anything for the sick, the starving, the forcibly drugged, the scared pregnant woman, or anyone truly for that matter but the small few with some elusive agenda.

By all means just hit the delete button as this shit come in, honey, and maybe scoot over to spend some time with David at his ARAS site, because there's a man who knows how to kick ass. It's a tremendously interesting place to be! You can even read Henry Bauer's embarrassingly ignorant and incredibly stupid version of how the Perth Group buggered the Parenzee case, you really can.



Dear David

> Your history is utterly false and flies in the face of available evidence.

However, it is clear that, at present, you do not wish to enter into

a constructive discussion. Your hatred for me has put you in a place

where considering that even one cornerstone of your argument is wrong

is impossible for you, let alone that the entire edifice is fabricated.

If you ever wish to have a private, civilized discussion about this

history, I am always open. It is impossible to do this in public.

Since we're discussing history, and you're most concerned that 'utterly false' history that 'flies in the face of available evidence' should not be written, last thing's first if you don't mind.

A very important thing, much more important than you or any other thing.

A senior RA board member, your predecessor as RA President and a dear personal friend of mine I hope still, Professor Etienne de Harven, alleged to me, and then to this forum on 28 July, that Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is not the author of the historically seminal scientific discovery that Montagnier didn't isolate any virus in '83 as he claimed, and that actually the most deadly, most studied pathogen in the history of the world has never been shown to even exist – not then, and not since:

You give too much credit to the PG for the "HIV does not exist"

approach! It was not their idea !!! It was that of Stefan Lanka, in

1994 (?). And the PG swiftly appropriated it !!!...

I immediately reacted:

Good heavens man, you cannot be serious!!!

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues are intellectual thieves!!!

They are thieves!!!

Etienne! Did you possibly dine too well this evening?!!!

Everything Stefan Lanka said and wrote about 'HIV' and 'retroviruses' (and making many foolish basic mistakes as he did so) derived from lengthy telephone calls to Eleni in which he sat at her feet, so to speak, gobbling up everything she taught him.

Do you get that, Etienne?

Gobbling up everything she taught him from the cutting edge of the field: her hard work, her insights, her conclusions, her original science, everything he ran off with and claimed as his own.

You are evidently unaware that his scientific plagiarism is the reason she'll have nothing to do with him now.

Read Lanka's pieces on virusmyth again, and apply your discerning French nose for fine French cheese and fine French wine (such as we enjoyed many times together with Christian): you'll see it's all Eleni's, uncredited! It jumps off the page at you!

People are always stealing her work.


To my private plea that he move quickly to remedy his enormous awful mistake, Etienne responded two days later on 30 July:

Dear Anthony!

I am perfectly willing to apologize if it is proven that I did a mistake!

I spent late hours, last night to, reviewing, in "Virusmyth" all the long papers by the PG.

I found many papers, mostly in Continuum, in the 1996-1998, explaining in extreme details how difficult, close to impossible it has been to isolate and purify HIV. They NEVER, incidentally, quoted my early work (1965...) on murine retrovirus purification !!!!!  

Still, my method was recognized as the best by many !!  The PG totally ignored it ! [They didn't ignore it at all; on the contrary, they examined it closely and found it to be an embarrassing pile of rubbish.]

And I could never find, in PG's papers, a statement to the non- existence of HIV.

I found that statement in Lanka's, 1995 paper in Continuum.

If you can give me a PG reference (1995 or earlier) that you feel I missed, send it to me right away ! 


All the best,


I replied two days after that, on 2 August:

My dear Etienne

Please pardon my insensitive suggestion that you telephone Stefan Lanka and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos to investigate the veracity of your claim that Eleni 'swiftly appropriated' Stefan's discovery that 'HIV' hasn't been shown to exist: I was about to email you their telephone numbers when I recalled your trouble hearing over the phone.

Now Einstein has been proclaimed the 'Man of the Century' for his special and general theories of relativity.

In fact relativity theory, the rock of 20th Century physics,  is all fanciful junk, founded on the most childish mathematical errors, as literally thousands of published critiques have shown, but all to no effect.

It hardly matters that much, it seems to me, because although false, Einstein's physics have never made it outside the textbooks of the academy as far as I can tell.

Conversely, the Montagnier-Gallo HIV-AIDS paradigm has directly impacted on health, society, politics, commerce, law, morality, ideology – on humanity at every level – on leviathan scale.

The international AIDS dissident community knows that the almost universally accepted and implemented HIV-AIDS model is wrong.

Until the other day we all knew that the author of the most piercing, radical critique of this model is the Australian physicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.

When to my stunned amazement you proclaimed her a common thief.

Your implication being she is not the Copernicus of our time, urging a novel scientific critique with incalculably massive, explosive ramifications for the world.

No, she's an intellectual thief who steals other people's scientific discoveries and falsely claims them as her own.

Which is to say she's a charlatan and a rogue and a liar and a thief as low as your Louis Pasteur.

I'm sure you'll agree that it's profoundly important that the history of the priority of the missing virus discovery be recorded correctly.

And that there should be no unfounded and unwarranted controversy muddying it.

In a public forum of about 50 dissident activists, you have accused her of having stolen the core of her scientific life's work – I mean that part of it publicly known – for which, when it's finally recognized, history will eventually rank her greater than Galileo.

Your stealing accusation, Etienne, is consequently extremely grave, and it must be resolved promptly, either with proof tabled in support of it, or with an unequivocal retraction coupled if possible with a due apology.

This matter cannot be left floating undetermined.

For instance, it would never be acceptable for me to publicly accuse you of paedophilia, and then respond casually when challenged: 'Well that's how it looked to me from some things I read on the internet, even though no one else in the world has drawn the same appalling conclusion, but I'll gladly withdraw my accusation that you're a paedophile if you show me the proof that I'm wrong.' 

It doesn't work that way, Etienne!

The matter is pressing, because if the matter is raised with you by a speaker from the floor at the RA conference in November immediately after your talk, or by a journalist there, the damage will be incalculable.

What will you say if asked?

'Yes, as far as I can see, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos "swiftly appropriated" Stefan Lanka's monumental historical discovery that no 'HIV' has ever been shown to exist.'


'No, I made a big mistake about that. I take it back and I'm sorry.'

To get to the bottom of this, you can write to Eleni via [...]; and likewise to Stefan at [...]   – or if that email is now defunct, you can reach him at his Klein-Klein Action group in Germany:

Let's settle this quietly!

I'm copying this to Mbeki for his interest and shall keep him informed of developments.

All the best


From three weeks of silence from him in this matter it seems that Etienne has decided not to retract but to persist with his terrible false charge against Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.

It would appear also that you support Etienne in the terrible false charge he makes against Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.

My conclusion that you support Etienne in the terrible false charge he makes against Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos rests on two legs.

The first is that you've not acted to address and resolve his diabolical imputation against her, as I have mentioned before, which would suggest that as President of RA you're happy with it, and you're happy to let it stand unrebuked.

The second, which suggests all the more that you're happy with it, and you're happy to let it stand unrebuked, is that a couple of months after the launch of the first version of your RA website (the website of your June 2006 clique, the original 1991 Scientific Group having long before disintegrated, stopped issuing bulletins by July 2001, and keeping a website, which had gone offline and whose domain name had been allowed to fall into the hands of a low-life commercial domain name reseller), several articles by the Perth Group were posted, including a clarifying résumé of their work and the importance of reading it in the original, concluding with a plea that people read it in the original lest they get a garbled version of it from other people's confused second hand takes on it, such as Etienne's.

I understand, though I'm not certain, that the Perth Group's 'Clarification' was discussed at your June 2006 RA meeting, and for some reason who the hell knows why it caused a stir.

Sadly, I believe, RA only featured this clarifying notice online for only six months, between August 2006 and February 2007.

The revamped RA website put up in 2007 omitted this notice, presumably because then RA president Etienne de Harven considers the Perth Group's seminal historical work to be unoriginal and stolen from Stefan Lanka, then a very young man, notwithstanding that he's never directly staked such a magnificent originality claim himself.

As mentioned before, you rejected the Perth Group's request to post their 'Clarification' notice on the new RA site because you said it concerned their scientific priority, which like Etienne, you evidently don't recognize.

I'm speaking of the most stupendous, subversive, explosive scientific discovery made since Copernicus made his in the early 1500s.

And all they wanted from you was to post a little notice about their work, like you had up for a few months before.

While we're on the subject, nothing on the current RA website frontpage draws attention to the science of the Perth Group, the leading scientists of the AIDS dissident community, all scientifically literate AIDS dissidents agree; and the former links to their papers on the preceding site have all been taken down.

Searching the current RA website I found a pitifully lonely, unheralded link to their Perth Group website (which I hear took some reminding for RA to include) in the 'other links' section among a bunch of other truly appalling websites, my own extensive resource on ARVs and other matters thank Christ excluded from the company; and a link to the Perth Group's submission to the Nobel Committee on the occasion of its laurel granted Luc Montagnier last year, only buried so deep in a pile of other worthless shit posted on the subject that any casual uninformed visitor would get the impression it was at the same puerile level.

I found nothing else on your RA site on, from or about the Perth Group, but please inform me if I missed anything hidden in some backroom that your 'Search' facility couldn't help me with.

It may be that my choice of key words, 'Perth Group', might have been an unlucky one for searching your RA website for mention of the unmentionable Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues, next to whom the ridiculous scientists on your board look like a bunch of dribbling toddlers and drooling fools.

Obviously in time there will be a public interrogation of the reasons and personal motivations of the particular individual who directed that the Perth Group be rubbed out of the picture with a Stalin-airbrush, perhaps so that he can look more important and more like the main man in the whole show for history's sake, when this whole thing finally falls down.

My question for now is: Why have you not addressed your senior board member's extraordinarily serious charge of scientific plagiarism?

Do you imagine it's none of your business?

Or that it's unimportant?

You can't pretend that you don't care about the things Etienne goes around saying because you were quick to try to censor him – demanding that he submit his draft emails to you to vet and approve in future, or bounce and delete at your Presidential pleasure – when he agreed with some of us dissident dissidents that your and Rasnick's failure to even accommodate, let alone put centre-stage, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos's missing virus science at your November jamboree was a travesty of what you well know to be the true and correct science of AIDS, namely that there's no virus, and the claim that a virus has been isolated and exists is a lie.

Since you do care about what Etienne says, and don't want him saying the wrong things, and you've demonstrated that you take firm Presidential action when he says the wrong things, you'd better deal with this, and the sooner the better.

Here's why.

As I told you in November 2007 to your justifiable delight, Mbeki picked a fine little passage you wrote about the religious nature of AIDS mythology as an epigram to place near the top of the June 2007 version of Castro Hlongwane, his radical attack on the scientific and ideological foundations of the HIV-AIDS paradigm (see the original 2002 version) in which, being an intelligent person, he's naturally with the Perth Group all the way. Which is why he has no interest in the phony brand of AIDS dissident junk science you peddle because it's politically convenient for you personally and also you think 'many people' can't manage the truth and are better persuaded with lies, and not since April 2000 at the very latest, and if only you knew the whole story.

And depending on how things turn out, and I assure you we've got some way to travel still, who knows whether the your epigram will remain atop Mbeki's historical Castro Hlongwane manifesto, along with a bit from that martyr to the truth Giordano Bruno, whom they burned in Rome in 1600 just for being honest (and who's statue in the square I recall seeing with a searing jolt in 2007 as I type).

He's close to the Perth Group, Mbeki is, you've just got no idea; and he'll naturally be interested in how you handle this matter as President of RA.

As I've said before, I'm keeping a journal and I'm keeping him informed.

You may think it's a matter of no consequence what Mbeki thinks of you and your RA, now that that he's out office and free to speak his mind and act and on what everyone agrees was the major policy controversy of his Presidency, about which it's common knowledge that he still feels very strongly.

But I would be surprised if you thought what Mbeki thinks of you and your RA a matter of no consequence, now that that he's out office and free to speak his mind and act and on what everyone agrees was the major policy controversy of his Presidency, about which it's common knowledge that he still feels very strongly.

Even if he's currently rather busy at the moment mediating in the Sudan.

After you've addressed this very serious matter, this very serious matter of Etienne publicly accusing Eleni of scientific plagiarism on the gravest imaginable scale, I'll deal seriatim with the allegations made in my post, 'Crowe for the history books', and my following 'A letter to a comrade elucidating the malaise of David Crowe's RA organization' in which I cite further examples of your derisory treatment of the Perth Group, your determination to sideline, marginalize them, and frustrate and obstruct their ventilation of the truth about AIDS which is that there is no virus, after which all the rest of it just falls to pieces.

And my other allegations concerning you and RA, commencing with those I made in my 'tokoloshe letter', too.

In this process we'll test whether even 'one cornerstone of [my] argument is wrong', 'let alone [whether] the entire edifice is fabricated'.

Bearing in mind the lawyer's dangerous insistence sometimes on 'drawing the corporate veil' when things get smelly, to reveal the human reality behind the appearance of things in corporate organizations, obviously perfumed with lavatory deodorizer generously sprayed all over the place.

And then, when we've opened the windows for the sun to come in and we've established the real history of RA in the full healthy light of day, we can turn to an open examination, debate, and audit of your performance as President of RA, by which I mean your policy judgement in action.

We'll hold a polite 'constructive discussion' as you call it.

Of whether you've been a tremendous credit to us, a man of brilliant mind and fine and memorable accomplishments.

Or the AIDS industry's dream opposition, a gift right out of heaven for them.

I'm sure you'll be comfortable with this.

Doing things in the open, and accountable to the community of activists you reckon you represent.

Including me.



At 5:33 AM +0200 8/18/09, Anthony Brink wrote:

> Janine wrote:

>>  I shudder often at Anthony's attacks - he uses words I would never

> Let it never be forgotten:

> Crowe was the organizing energy behind the formation of the June 2006

> clique. He made sure the Perth Group was not invited to join its board;

> voted with the rest to blow them off at the June meeting as scientific

> has-beens; rejected their subsequent plea for representation on the board on

> the basis that this would prejudice Peter and his childishly false science

> about harmless retroviruses and DNA chain terminators; sabotaged the

> historic Parenzee case by persuading his counsel to rather go with Peter's

> childishly false science about harmless retroviruses halfway through the

> trial; organized a conference in Peter's suburban backyard showcasing

> Peter's childishly false science about harmless retroviruses and DNA chain

> terminators, also South African AIDS epidemiology full of childish mistakes

> making it easy for our enemies to get his latest paper knocked right off the

> Medical Hypotheses homepage, and probably soon withdrawn completely;

> allowing Peter's risibly clueless ally Rasnick to pick the topics and the

> speakers, who naturally keeps the missing virus problem off the conference

> agenda with Crowe's blessing, because why this would show up Peter's

> childishly false science about harmless retroviruses and at the same time

> make him look an equal fool for just going along with Peter's childishly

> false science about harmless retroviruses not actually knowing what the

> hell's going on, and also he wouldn't want to offend Peter and Bob funding

> Peter and Peter's conference; rejected Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos's request

> that her nominated, authorized (and experienced) proxy speaker present her

> seminal historic discovery of the missing virus problem at the June 2006

> clique's 2009 conference; then when the shit hit the fan asked Etienne to

> present a bastardized mangled wrong version of Eleni's seminal historic

> discovery of the missing virus problem without her authority, which Etienne

> picked up off the internet and swiftly appropriated, only claiming to know

> better than she does when it comes to microbiology because look Montagnier

> undoubtedly did find a retrovirus, there it is, only it's a human endogenous

> retrovirus not an exogenous one, you only have to look; and as president of

> his organization Crowe hasn't had a word to say about Etienne's obscene

> claim that Eleni 'swiftly appropriated' her seminally important, historic

> discovery of the missing virus problem from Stefan Lanka, which obscene

> claim Etienne will obviously repeat at the conference, if asked, for all the

> world's newspapers to report, namely that Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is a

> common thief, since he's declined my urgent private appeal to him to retract

> and apologize (I'm keeping Mbeki in the loop).

> When the history of AIDS is written decades or centuries from now, Crowe

> will be remembered for his efforts to impede the work of the Nicolaus

> Copernicus of our time, since gee we must all work together.

> And you wonder why I despise him utterly, Janine.

> A

On 28 August:

'A letter to a comrade':

I mentioned several examples in my email to you [above]. Then I remembered more:

He rejected the Perth Group's request to post a little notice on his RA website about their work.

He never solicited their input regarding Gallo's et al criticism of Celia Farber's article in Harper's.

He never solicited their input regarding RA's The AIDS Trap brochure; and then after it was presented rejected their concern expressed about the grossly unscientific and potentially tortious misstatements in it (stand by for a detailed statement), and refused to publish their disclaimer, having regard to the fact that RA purports to include them as being among its two and a half thousand members.

I also made a note about an important email from Crowe to the major dissident activists in May last year, in which he didn't even bother including Turner as representative of the Perth Group; in his estimation they evidently weren't important enough.

PS: When challenged by Turner concerning another instance of being left out a mass mailing from his, Crowe replied, well I have just so many emails on my mind I just overlooked you by mistake.

Of course he didn't say, As our leading AIDS dissident scientists, head and shoulders above the rest, you were top of my list, but so high up in the stratosphere that I lost sight of you, complete fool that I am, and that's how I missed you and didn't include you.


Dear David

> I am prepared to talk to you privately at any time.

My position is that virtually everything you have written about me and RA is erroneous. The one small correction you made is a nice start, but you have a long way to go.

You do not have my permission to mediate between myself and former president Mbeki. If he is interested in RA (I doubt he is interested in me personally), he is welcome to communicate with me directly.

Regarding Etienne, it is rather ironic that you now want me to step in and discipline him because of what you think is an error (you haven't provided clear evidence that he's wrong). Yet you have made streams of erroneous statements about me and RA and apparently have no plans to correct them, except one minor correction which just perpetuated other errors.

I think scientific priority disputes are pretty much a waste of time, particularly when most people in the world wouldn't have a clue what the fuss is about. Let's educate the world first.

Here's good old Wikipedia with a list of some of the disputes:

It's important when we're writing the true history of AIDS but right now we can't even get in the mainstream media. We need to solve that problem first.

Everything I am doing I am doing openly, as in a courtroom with open doors, for the historical record.

I don't deal behind the scenes.

I work openly, and I stand the criticism I have attracted for expressing myself so plainly since the publication of my 'tokoloshe letter'.

I decline the terms of secret engagement you proffer.

You have already responded publicly to some of what I have charged against you on your website. (I've captured the page in case you take it down, and in time I will post it and deal with each and every statement you make: variously evasive and false.)

I am not 'mediat[ing]' between you and former President Mbeki, and only a dishonest moron would try spinning my reporting of your conduct to him (with your defences) as mediating between him and you. Accordingly you have my full permission to shove your 'permission' as far as you can.

You may be 'President' of your RA clique, and as such the censor of Etienne's email correspondence, but you are not my President, and I'll do what I please without your foolish 'permission'.

You can be certain that Mbeki is 'interested' in the politics of your RA under your control, and particularly what you have done to sideline, marginalize, frustrate, obstruct and disrupt the Perth Group's science and thereby impede the ventilation of the most basic simple truth about the AIDS scheme that harms our country so severely at so many levels.

I have already mentioned Mbeki's abiding interest and deep concern about AIDS, and I have intimated his special relationship with the Perth Group.

So you can be certain he is 'interested'.

You know full well why he'll be 'interested in [you] personally'; as I mentioned, he quotes you in Castro Hlongwane. It follows that your pretence that you 'doubt' his interest is another lie.

Your typical diarrhoeal gushing concerning Etienne's false charge of scientific plagiarism, in which you avoid your responsibility as RA president to resolve the matter – indeed you even dissemble that Etienne's false charge establishes a real dispute – only confirms to me that you are both an extremely stupid and phenomenally dishonest person.

The worst of it is your insulting implication that you thought such stupid and dishonest waffle could fly past me.

I record therefore that you have refused my demand as a member of the international AIDS dissident community to take steps to resolve the hugely important scientific plagiarism issue.

I won't you ask again, and I will report this final decision of yours.

Namely that before 'writing the true history of AIDS', and specifically who the author of the missing particle problem of AIDS is,  'We need to solve [the] problem first [that] we can't even get in the mainstream media'.

Be assured that you will not need to concern yourself for long about not getting 'in the mainstream media. We need to solve that problem first.'

You can count on me to help you solve this 'problem' of yours, this 'problem' of getting 'in the mainstream media' and I expect you will be getting 'in the mainstream media' soon, very much so, and at just the right time.


Anthony Brink


Dear Michael

With reference to my post below, you asked:

As you seem to clearly show that pinning down the prosecution as to their exact meaning of HIV and fully putting their own definition on trial would have been crucial to winning the case, do you perceive that Mr. Borick, particularly as he himself was a newcomer to what you have deeply researched, simply did not himself have the sufficient understanding of Perth's position that would have been necessary in order to put HIV itself on trial?

Yes, I think he didn't have a strong enough handle on the scientific facts, and this impeded his ability to cross-examine the orthodoxy's witnesses effectively. The other thing was that his confidence in the Perth Group's radical strategic approach to the case, which was to testify about the fundamental trouble with the HIV theory of AIDS, was subverted by Crowe's urging that the evidence of Duesberg and de Harven be led for the bang he felt their academic credentials would have, notwithstanding that both contradict the Perth Group's core demonstrable contention advanced at trial that Montagnier never proved the existence of any retrovirus in the suspected cell culture.

If so, what do we do about this, as the next case may also happen at any moment?

Feel free to get the lawyer talking to me.

Did we need the failure of the Parenzee trial in order to get our own minds away from battling the orthodoxy in media skirmishes, to understanding what exactly will be needed in order to win any such case.

I was just making this very point over breakfast this morning: we can never battle the orthodoxy in the media; it's hopeless. And this has been the basic, ruinous policy failure of Crowe's RA: electing to play feel-good PR games in the media with known bad science, instead of proceeding against the orthodoxy with the best science there is: the correct science they couldn't crack in Parenzee, as I said before.

In many ways, we dissidents ALL were all fully unprepared for the sudden arrival of the Parenzee case into our laps.

This isn't so, Michael. The Perth Group were prepared: if you look at their site they were hoping such a court case might come along as the best forum for an adjudicated debate and decisive arbitration of the scientific controversy. And there is nothing in the record of their evidence to suggest they were caught unprepared.

Again, what do we do about this, as the next case may also happen at any moment?
Would it be of great service for a paper to be prepared laying out exactly what strategy would have been, or would yet be, most successful for any such future case?

Ideally, when the next case happens, the attorneys will be alerted to the Perth Group's scientific critique and legal strategy conception; and the Perth Group and me are just a phone call away.

Such a case is very likely to proceed in the future, and I seriously doubt that it will be in the Perth Group's lap as the Parenzee case was. We most likely will not have them here in the US or in Europe for any such case. Therefore, if we do not have this fully understood by then, we will again be facing inevitable courtroom disaster in what cases will yet surely come.

That's the way it looks to me. The Crowe-RA clique treatment of Eleni as the Cinderella of the AIDS dissident movement has been an immense mistake; and this is why RA is doomed to oblivion like the Russian Mensheviks.

Sooner or later, an up and coming dissident is likely to be put on trial somewhere. Likely down in one of the Southern states such as Georgia, Alabama, Texas, which are already seeing many hiv transmission cases, or perhaps even in Crowes backyard in Canada, as there have been a rash of such HIV transmission charges brought up there of late as well.

Are we capable of such a paper that could also make clear the various mistakes in strategy and thinking by those of us who are not lawyers? Should not the mistakes of Parenzee be clearly pointed out, so that all dissidents may be on the same page of strategy as much as possible the next time such a case lands in our laps somewhere?

The thing is to tip the lawyers to the core trouble with the HIV-AIDS theory: there is no virus, and any lawyer with any skill will know how to swing it from there. As for the mistakes of Parenzee, Crowe still thinks the Perth group strategy to try 'HIV' itself was wrong, and that a better one should have been and should be adopted, i.e. he considers his personal judgment in the matter of forensic strategy superior to the Perth Group's. And superior to mine too, as a litigation lawyer with two decades experience in the courts almost every single working day.

If we are not, we will again have too many cooks spoiling the soup and attempting to pull the good lawyer this way and that.

That's the charge against Crowe: that he pulled the lawyer this way and that. And to this charge he's pleaded no contest. He's admitted that he insistently proposed Duesberg and de Harven as expert witnesses for trial, both of whom contradict the Perth Group in their correct assertion that Montagnier never found any retrovirus (de Harven, in his wisdom, reckons Montagnier published a micrograph of a so-called 'endogenous retrovirus' budding from a cell). He thinks the more cooks in the kitchen the better, and he petulantly rebukes the Perth Group for their considered decision on keeping Parenzee a two witness, single issue case.  

This notion of the more the merrier, a muddled up free-for-all in which members contradict one another (albeit with one faction dominant (the junk science faction), both Crowe and de Harven admit), rather than the fewer the better, but highly tuned and tightly focussed – Lenin's advice in 1902 in What is to be done? – is the root incapacitating trouble with RA: a political organization without an agreed scientific position, a social network rather than a rigorous scientific organization.

And to my great disappointment, my German friends, famed nationally for their political analytical and strategic acuity, just don't get it. They want us all to be chums and never mind the science which is the point of it all.

Without dumping useless blame on people who clearly did not know better, or naively did what they mistakenly thought was helpful, what the fuck exactly went wrong in the Parenzee case, and what would work in the next case we are faced with, so that it could be given to the next clumsy ass newcomer attorney who is faced with this?

You'll find all the answers you seek in an exchange of email between the Perth Group and David Crowe, with the PG's comment on it, plus, to get a complete idea of where Crowe is at and how he thinks, his eventual response as a final word. You won't find a shred of understanding of why and how his conduct in the case was so inevitably destructive; and accordingly he's not contrite in the least.

We all make mistakes in life, and as a lawyer I have made decisions that turned out to have been unwise; this is life, it's an imperfect world. We can learn from our mistakes, but first we have to acknowledge them.

There's one more thing, Michael. Others have done so, but I've never questioned Crowe's good intentions. In his own mind he has all the best will in the world. He's had a lot of energy for the dissident cause. He's been very helpful to me in the work I do over the years. But what he did in Parenzee was disastrous beyond measure, both for Parenzee personally and for our struggle generally. Yet Crowe still believes and insists he did the right thing. This makes him an extremely  dangerous element among us, because if another case comes up he's likely to conduct himself in precisely the same way. With the blessing of the RA board, we see from it's little website notice. And of course there's the matter of his marginalization of the Perth Group and their scientific expertise at every opportunity since he got RA started.  This explains my hostility towards him that you've seen in this forum.

Anthony, you may be the only dissident in all of dissidentdom that has the understanding to prevent such a courtroom disaster and setback in the future.

Eleni often tells me so.

And God forbid if anything should happen to you, because how are WE, who cannot even agree on the time of day, going to get such a nonexistent analysis to the next attorney faced with this dilemma?

Hold thumbs for me, Michael.


> Sadun
> In a criminal prosecution in this country, and I assume elsewhere, the
> accused has the right to request further particulars to a charge before
> pleading to it.
> The joy of such a request for further particulars is that it can be used to
> expose the prosecution's Achilles Heel.
> In an AIDS case one could pin the prosecution down by requiring it to
> stipulate precisely what it means by 'HIV'.
> 'Is it intended to allege [the formal lingo we use] that 'HIV' is a virus?
> Is it intended to allege that HIV means Human Immunodeficiency Virus?
> Is it intended to allege that a virus is an obligatory intracellular
> parasite?'
> And so on; I think you get the drift.
> You guide the prosecutor into irrevocably committing itself to precisely
> the conventional scientific understanding of 'HIV' that it assumes is
> abundantly established, only on a close look isn't.
> A


This is a message to Sadun from Eleni that I was asked to post to this forum.

Since he wrote on 30 August 'So goodbye for now. I disabled the notifications…', I've copied Sadun in separately.



Dear Sadun,

Firstly, I would like to apologise for not communicating with you as often

as we would have liked.  At least in part this is one of the consequences of

the Parenzee case.  Secondly, we agree with you that we all should strive to

do things "properly, objectively, truthfully" and welcome any criticism.

Regarding my response to the prosecutor concerning Padian's AIDSTruth

commentary on her study.  My responses were as honest and sincere  as

humanly possible.  I had no reason whatsoever to give "false" information.

Repeat, I was "100% honest".  It was my impression that nobody in court,

including the judge, "sensed" that I was "less than honest".  Even now I

can't recall if I ever saw the commentary before I gave the evidence-in-chief

or the cross-examination.  In fact we still cannot find if Padian's commentary

was posted before I gave my evidence, or as a response to it.

Celia and Claus are right.  Even if I have seen it, most probably I did not

take any notice, and thus did not register.  I did not panic but I was very

surprised.  The prosecutor repeatedly stated that the court should take into

consideration only our publications in peer-reviewed journals, if any.  I

discussed Padian's study (her 3 publications) in detail, and then the

prosecutor questioned me about a comment on a website!! (where contributions

are not assessed/reviewed by anyone in the field).  I was even more

surprised that Kevin did not object.  What you read in the Judge's Reasons

was what the prosecutor wrote in the written summary (taken out of context)

and unfortunately repeated by the Judge.  I never admitted that I knew about

the Padian commentary, if I had I would have been dishonest. The correspondence

with Padian was before the trial started and had nothing to do with her

AIDSTruth commentary.

Sadun, I know that you, like all of us, are frustrated, and I am sorry if I

added a little bit more to it.  No ill feelings, many, many hugs.

My best wishes,




If we can put the 30 page diatribe about Crowe's involvement in the Parenzee trial aside for a moment,

Your characterization of an equable, considered exchange of email between the PG and Crowe, plus their comment, plus his in a separate document later on, as a 'diatribe', makes me wonder whether your own position is so jaundiced that the game is worth the candle for me. Anyway…

perhaps we can see other reasons why that trial was lost and stop believing whole-heartedly that it was one man's fault.

Let me tell you that there is even more to the shocking, repellent 'fault' of the 'one man' in question than is generally known, and all you have to do to find out is be patient.

I believe you have your nose so close to every period and comma the Perth Group has written, that you can no longer see the wood for the trees. For that judge to listen to EPE's testimony for nearly two entire days and then come back and declare she is not qualified to be an expert witness sounds like a giant fraud to me. The same judge listened to Gallo lie under oath and didn't think there was anything wrong with that. Even this graphic designer could tell when Gallo was twisting the facts, so surely it was obvious to the judge. In other words, the enemy is stronger than us and they fight dirty. We always try to play nice and by the rules when up against an evil empire of immoral drug pushers. The deck is stacked against us. That judges assessment smelled of foul play, of pre-conceived prejudice. Eleni could have produced a video tape showing Robert Gallo admitting he invented the whole notion of HIV as a practical joke and the judge still would have thrown her out of court. There was no way to win. I find it shocking that you believe otherwise. Maybe you believe more in that system than I do, since you are so closely involved in it. From a distance, it looks like a dog-and-pony show.

Thing is Josh, if you'd read the 'diatribe' more judiciously and with less impatience, you'd have noted that things were going swimmingly until Crowe came along and made sure that the fundamental defence strategy was changed midstream from a no virus to a harmless virus position. We don't need to posit corruption on the judge's part for his sudden switch from receptivity to harsh mean-spirited prejudice. Crowe's radical disruption of the case explains it sufficiently. The judge pertinently commented on the change of the factual basis on which the application was being brought. He didn't know that this prick had arrived, working furtively (and later accounting for it deceitfully) to bugger the case up, since he thinks he is cleverer when it comes to how to run a case than the Australians are.

We have important new legal opportunities arising and instead of gathering our troops and forging a bullet-proof united front, we have dissidents scattering and giving up hope because of your style of confrontation. If yours is the only way to move forward, then we're truly fucked.

Are we not 'truly fucked' already with the quality of leadership over at RA?

Do we want to be gathered behind these sorts of people?

Is our 'united front' 'bullet-proof', when we're not 'united' on the all-important scientific fundamentals – just waiting to burst in our faces again, as in Parenzee.

If the dregs drop away, because they find my style too hot , this is good. We need highly focussed, highly tuned minds brought to bear on 'important new legal opportunities'. Not the sort who tremble at conflict.

> Would you dissent from my judgment that his behaviour in the Science Letter
> episode warrants the conclusion that Crowe is 'a total sack of shit'?

Yes I would, your Honor. I demand a recount.

Crowe's conduct was OK in your book?
And dude, you haven't heard the half of it: stand by for much more.

> Can you think of better descriptions for this utterly disgusting person?

I'm sure it's a waste of time to explain to you that David is not an utterly disgusting person, since you have made up your mind to destroy the dissident movement under the guise of fixing it. Why not put your considerable brain power and energy to good use?

I'm rallying the troops, Josh. And I'm weeding out the wankers.

The 'HIV' believers or those without the nous to decide whether it has been shown to exist or not, or in the case of Crowe with the nous to know there's no virus but who thinks its strategically savvy to tell lies about it and pretend it does exist because he thinks others aren't as clever as him and can't also see the truth of the matter as quickly as him, must party on their own.

> Otherwise I'm glad you liked the information I'm putting about!

I never said I liked the information you're putting out there, I conceded that it "might" be good information but it was tiresome to wade through all the crap to determine it as such.

> Celia reckons is all because the Devil has got to me!

Celia has the benefit of a woman's intuition. Can you offer definitive proof that you are not in league with evil forces?

I strangle a cat every morning.

I would love to start fighting the real enemy. [...] What do you say? Or, are you happy wasting bullets assassinating your own soldiers?

Our fight against 'the real enemy' has been a failure with the scientific and strategic approach followed to date, tried and failed for 22 years.

It's time for a radically new approach.

The hard fact of it is that RA is a useless American style PR marketing organization. All Colgate smiles and flashy noise. It doesn't even have a scientific position on the cause it's marketing.

It's all about Rotarian type personalities from the business world with business ethics and business communication styles, and clubby do-gooding.

It's contemptible.

The terrible fact, and the hardest fact to face, is that RA's scientific leader Peter has led us down a scientific and political dead-end.

We can talk about the other jokers on the Board another day.



> Our fight against 'the real enemy' has been a failure with the scientific
> and strategic approach followed to date, tried and failed for 22 years.
> It's time for a radically new approach.

I agree completely. Without trying to insult some heroes of mine, I would also like to point out that the strategy has not worked so far, but I don't place as much faith in a single entity like RA as you do.

Josh, I'm not looking for a single church-like entity. But what's completely intolerable is that a bunch of lo-watt bozos should attempt to grab political control of the dissident movement, by setting up an unelected ruling board, picking their chums to man it, claim to represent and speak for us, and butt in uninvited in to screw up whatever moves we might make.

I exist outside of RA, as do most dissidents I communicate with. In fact, in those dark months of severe depression, when I lead a double-life, mining the internet for information late at night, I never once stumbled across the brand-name "Rethinking AIDS." (Perhaps from a technical point of view, since a person in the position of testing positive has "HIV" on the brain, not "AIDS," maybe the handle "Rethinking AIDS" doesn't come up in any relevant internet searches being conducted.) I did, however, come across the writing of Celia Farber, Christine Maggiore and David Crowe. Even if, by your standards, they were pushing some incorrect science at times, they were successful as pulling me back from the ledge and giving me a chance to view this whole thing from a more rational perspective. If you are successful at dismantling RA, or reorganizing it (if that is even your goal), do you think it will make a huge difference? I guess what I am asking is: Is it important to have a single organization representing the dissenting view on HIV/AIDS?

No it isn't. I agree. The trouble is that while claiming to be the President of all the AIDS dissidents in the world Crowe's RA has at EVERY OPPORTUNITY obstructed and frustrated the ventilation of the truth about AIDS – there is no virus – by sideling the Perth Group in favour of Peter on the basis that Peter's ludicrous junk science is more palatable to the American mind.

If you and the Perth Group and Eugene and Claus etc have a crystal clear view of all that is transpiring in the upside down world of HIV and AIDS, would you be willing to behave as another group and put forth that information in a simple-to-understand format? Could you arm the rest of us with "talking points" that would neutralize the hostility I field from people at clubs or in passing when they get wind of the crazy "beliefs" I hold? As with any powerful religion, the followers of "HIV" are ready to violently oppose the infidels, especially those impotent ones with no hard evidence to share accept the "harmless passenger virus" theory.

This is something else, Josh. No one has THE WAY in social encounters like this. I like to start with the drugs. That tends to make mouths drop, and soften up the listener for the main message. Worked on Mbeki. But it's a hard sell overall, and we seldom get through.

In court is another story. Here we get to choose the terms of engagement. This is what Perth did very effectively until you know who came along thinking he knew better and changed them.



DC [Crowe]

Addressing Gene you wrote:

There appears to be a disease going around where people are happy to
post derogatory comments about me on hivaidsparadigm but refuse to
respond to personal emails from me.

I have not received a response to this email, perhaps posting it on
hivaidsparadigm will help solicit a response from you.

I responded to your 'personal email [to] me' yesterday concerning the authenticity of the Greens documents I published to directly interested parties only with an immediate 'personal email from me'. I raised two critical issues preliminary to addressing it fully (I addressed parts of it).

You complain here that others 'refuse to respond to personal emails from me'.

Do you also propose to 'refuse to respond to personal email from me' concerning your responsibility as RA president to resolve your fellow board member's extremely serious accusation made in this forum that EPE stole her epochal missing virus science from SL?

Are you going to respond to the 'personal email from me' further concerning your invitation to this board member to present EPE's epochal missing virus science at the November conference, without her authority and without her approval, indeed quite the contrary and against her strenuous objections, after you rejected her nominated representative in whom she has full confidence, and who presented her science at international conference last year, on the basis, you said, that only the most qualified speaker on each subject should address your conference, well knowing that in the opinion of the historical originator of the science in question your fellow board member is not the most qualified speaker on the subject and nor are you, far from it. So that he'll be presenting it incorrectly, ignorantly criticizing it on the way, and thereby misdirecting the conference on the scientific facts, since he believes in retroviruses no less than Peter does and wow he knows a retrovirus when he sees one.

I posed seven clear questions to you. [SEE BELOW]

([Adding one] concerning your own intentions to speak to EPE's science without her authority and without her approval, not being the most qualified expert on the subject, and not having read thousands of papers on the subject as she has nor knowing anything about the highly oxidative property of semen as she does, which, per the two criteria you stipulated, disqualify you, as they do your fellow board member who, on his own showing, has never read anything more than virusmyth on the subject of the missing virus problem.)

I reminded you that in a notice on its website, RA undertook to deal with genuine, politely framed questions.  

The genuine, politely framed questions I put to you are addressed to you in your capacity as RA president.

Will posting the unanswered 'personal email from me' yesterday 'on hivaidsparadigm help solicit a response from you'?

Or is that unnecessary, because unlike the others you complain about who 'refuse to respond to personal emails from me', you will be answering my eight simple questions.

Even if they make you feel uncomfortable since they are important, searching questions, and your answers will have considerable implications.

This will put to bed at least one major criticism of you, namely that you are unaccountable as RA president and 'refuse to respond to personal emails', let alone emails posted in this discussion forum of concerned dissidents.

 As you said:

 >Okay, a challenge for you. Pick the most convincing criticism of me
>made by anyone. One criticism you consider most damaging. And I will
>provide the evidence that it's wrong.

 Please do.




Dear David Crowe

Referring to your email below, I have two preliminary bones to pick with you.


1. Are you as RA President not going to deal with Etienne's heinous, false allegation that Eleni stole from Lanka her Copernican scientific observation that Montagnier and Gallo never isolated any virus as they'd claimed?

2. Is it because you support Etienne's charge?

3. And is this why you and Etienne decided at the June 2006 RA meeting to refuse to publish the Perth Group's description and history of their work on your RA website, particularly concerning their claim to the original identification of the missing virus problem? Here are your minutes:

Contribution: RA 06.06-10 [Perth Group] — "Some clarification of the Perth Group's contribution to "HIV"/AIDS"

The Perth Group provided a summary of their contributions to the HIV/AIDS debate, including lists of scientific and popular publications. They had requested that it be uploaded to the RA website, but there were concerns over some of the statements (mainly the first and last paragraph).

Christine Maggiore moved, seconded by Charles Geshekter, that we thank the Perth Group for their important contributions to the HIV/AIDS debate. Unanimous support.

There was no support for putting this document on the website.

Status: FYI

4. Is this why on 24 August you contemptuously or disgracefully ignorantly responded to my first demand that as RA President you act to ensure Etienne withdraw his foul, false allegation by stating:

Regarding Etienne, it is rather ironic that you now want me to step in and discipline him because of what you think is an error (you haven't provided clear evidence that he's wrong).

5. Is your refusal to fix this shocking mess sprung from your agreement with Etienne's estimation perhaps of his own historical originality in this matter?


6. Are you as RA President persisting with your plan – the one you hatched to try to repair the crisis in our movement you precipitated by backing Rasnick's rejection of Eleni's nominated, authorized proxy speaker on the ‘HIV' isolation problem – to have Etienne present Eleni's science, without her authority, and without her approval – in fact her strenuous disproval on the basis that he doesn't know what's going on, as is plain from his Friend virus claims – ignorantly criticizing her science on the way, telling the meeting that she's wrong and Montagnier really did find a retrovirus, an endogenous retrovirus, which he confused for  ‘LAV'?

7. Are you yourself proposing to present Eleni's science on the isolation problem at the meeting, without her authority and without her approval.

I call your attention to your undertaking posted on your website:

The Board is always receptive to courteously framed suggestions and constructive scientific debate, but in future will ignore unbridled obscenity-laden untruths broadcast on the Internet.

If this is true and not a lie, the kind of lie that unscrupulous politicians tell, you will address my seven questions.

Best let me know your answers to my seven questions soonest.

Otherwise I have plans for you.

I'm warning you.

I've told you before: I'm not interested in you and your Greens story except to the extent that the history of your conduct before and after your ejection from the executive board shows your moral and criminal propensity in an evidential sense relevant to an assessment of your conduct while running your RA organization.

And it's your morality as president of RA that's now under historical assessment: how you deal with an extremely grave false accusation of theft of an epochal scientific discovery, the missing virus problem; and to fiercely aggravate it, the theft, with your connivance, by the accuser himself of the true originator's scientific discovery and his treatment of it as his own, with contemptuous disrespect for the wishes of the originator, and his presentation of it in corrupted form at public meetings as if it's just any common intellectual  property. Plus either misattributing its authorship to a third party who's never himself claimed the scientific discovery in question to be his own, or even falsely claiming that he's the author of the discovery.

This is the moral test you are on.

Etienne has already failed it.

Avoid it at your peril.

Let me know (a) whether or not you intend performing your obligation as RA President to see to it that Etienne withdraws his false theft charge against Eleni, or RA repudiates it in a statement posted on HIVAIDSPARADIGM where the charge was repeated, and (b) whether or not you and your RA organization are going to be complicit in Etienne theft of Eleni's scientific discovery, to show up damaged at your November conference.

I'll then address your problems with the history of your involvement with the Greens that I've captured and posted, for the time being, out of view of general visitors to my site.

Things are changing fast so you'd better look sharp and deal with my questions I've put to you.

You can count on me not to fuck around with this. I am very determined, and I assure you you don't want to try me to see just how determined I am.

It's so that I didn't give you the opportunity to respond to the three incriminating documents in question before putting them up for examination by your RA board, HIVAIDSPARADIGM members, and a couple of other interested individuals. This is in view of your failure to have dealt with the charges detailed in Paul Last's detailed investigation report concerning the reasons for the forced deregistration of the Alberta Greens after the new executive board under Anglin had just been voted in: your prima-facie criminal conduct on several scores. The documents leaked to me which I published were real evidence of the charges. But I immediately posted your dismal responses.

You didn't dispute the authenticity of the documents then; and you specifically authenticated at least one of them. Now you suggest they're ‘mythical' fabrications.

Anyway, once I've heard from you in the all-important preliminary RA matters I have raised with you, I'll consider the merits of your further statements concerning your conduct in the Greens below.

I'm interested only in the truth.

I don't do battle with lies.

If I find you clear, I'll jump.

In conclusion, look at it this way.

We each have big thorns in our respective feet.

We both want them out.

It's your move.



Mike G

You make some sound points methinks.

But resistance is imperative.

People are being terrorized and murdered.

In litigation, despite its human limitations, a dispute can be defined and determined.

It may be reasonable to say, as in France under the Occupation, as in apartheid South Africa: 'They're too strong for us.'

But the reasonable approach is the wrong approach.

It's inhuman.

Thing is to identify the chink in the armour for the blade.

A judicial trial of a crisp technical issue, defined as narrowly as possibly, seems the best opportunity.

Focusing on the Achilles Heel of AIDS.

The missing virus.



In a finely balanced or high stakes case, the slightest thing can tip it at any point, with the result that the entire cargo slips into the trash.

I've experienced this so often.

So many instances spring to mind – in two specific cases I was in resulting in terrible miscarriages of justice.

Something gets said, a small seemingly trivial hit is scored, and it turns the judge.

It changes his attitude.

What we've been reading in the excerpts of the Parenzee judgment quoted by Michael G is the sort of transparent rationalization that a judge resorts to to dress his gut feeling with.

Sulan's poisonous ardour gives him away.

In his new book The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law, Constitutional Court Judge Albie Sachs admits, 'Every judgment I write is a lie' shaped by both 'reason and passion', and all 'emerge from an inchoate – even chaotic – mental firmament quite different from that suggested by their ultimate assured expression'. (Indeed, in uncontrollable emotional rapture over the great blow he'd just struck for human rights Sachs burst into tears in the corridors after the delivery of judgment in the nevirapine case: see pp137-8 of The trouble with nevirapine.)

By ALL accounts the judge was impressed with Eleni's evidence by the time she was done.

So what changed?

What made the judge later doubt the reliability of what she was saying?

And then work so hard to gun it down.

With the manifest conviction of the unconvinced.

What turned him against her.

What made it easy for him, since the case was headed in an uncomfortably revolutionary direction.

If it's possible to answer this question honestly in this forum.

If it's permissible to ask this unpleasant question.

If answering it will identify the interference of a third party in changing the scientific foundation of the defence as that thing that tipped the case.

And show that the President of RA scored the most catastrophic own goal in the history of the dissident movement since Harvey Bialy fucked up Mbeki's AIDS Panel experiments.

Who later, when taxed about it, dishonestly concealed all the moves he made to score it (page 10ff).

Only to be caught out as a blatant liar by hard documentary evidence recently turned up of the questions he wrote out for Borick to direct the cross-examination of Gallo.

Or misdirect as the case may be depending whether you think the president of RA is an intelligent sort of person and a worthy leader of RA.




Yesterday the Perth Group formally dissociated from you and your RA organization.

In their statement in this regard, they pointed out that RA is not the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis as you falsely claim it to be.

See further: A History of RA (not to be confused with the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis).

The Group that Eleni joined and lent her name to in 1991 (and even the name of her work to) as one of its very earliest founder members was an informally constituted association of signatories around a scientific statement broadly and sensitively enough framed to make it possible for a number of scientists with fundamentally different scientific views to coalesce around a specific tactical objective.

To Clause you say, the Line Halstad press 'release has not gone out yet and it won't until the PR group considers it to be ready'.

When you and your PR group finally decides that your press release is ready, will you be deleting the false claim in the draft, as in all previous RA press releases, that your Rethinking AIDS organization and the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis are one and the same entity?

Mentioning Eleni and implying she supports you?

Or will you and your PR group be persisting with this false claim in the manner of a businessman observing the conventional ethics of the commercial classes, and operating in the conventional style of the failed small-time politician with no regard for truth – perhaps resorting to some Clintonian wordplay, and the kind of low cunning abounding in the lower criminal courts? Maybe even quoting a dictionary to look clever.



[Crowe:] Just for clarification. I am not involved in the Lanka-de Harven-Perth dispute.

Etienne made a statement and stated that if he was proven wrong he would withdraw it. He did not make that statement on behalf of RA.

Despite the presentation of the evidence that he was wrong, he hasn't withdrawn it.

You have pretended in the past to be concerned about the spread of false information.

Now it's obvious that you were just lying as usual.

You're not concerned at all.

I am still not clear when the first documented  statement overtly (and not implicitly) questioning the existence of HIV was made. I am also of the opinion that a dispute over scientific priority is rather pointless at this time.

Then you are an ignoramus and a fucking disgrace.

This is the sort of lying political speak we expect from you as a failed party politician.

There is no 'dispute over scientific priority' and you know it perfectly well.

With your kind of morals, it's no surprise you're unperturbed about the matter.

You have no qualms about inviting de Harven to appropriate Eleni's science and present it at your conference fucked up, knowing of her bitter opposition.

To him stealing her work.

That's just the kind of guy you are.

The lying and stealing sort.

All good by you.




I challenge you to provide evidence that what you say about the harmless passenger virus theory is being conveyed as "RA's message". If you cannot, please don't continue to mischaracterize RA.

- David

You only have to look at the About RA page that Crowe has just rewritten.

It's all about Peter.

It completely ignores the Perth Group's detailed recent restatement of the history of their criticism of the HIV theory of AIDS – preceding Peter's, and radically.

So Jon, your characterization of RA as a Duesberg claque is right on the mark.

Crowe himself admits RA's pro Duesberg bias.

Please don't be put off by this disgusting compulsive liar.

Say it like it is.



I agree with Mike and Anthony that a court can be a place for focussed attention on the minutiae.

But I agree with Michael Geiger that it is clear that Sulan was not interested in this, just interested in getting rid of the Perth Group.

Furthermore, while one approach would be to choose one issue (e.g. existence of HIV) and bank the entire case on that, another reasonable option according to some lawyers I've talked to is to address a number of issues, any one of which would prove the case.

- David


You still haven't got it into your unbelievably stupid head that once you give the opposition HIV they've won the case.

Of course you'd agree with Geiger because things were going swell until you fucked things up.

The judge pertinently mentioned the change in the factual basis of the case as a reason for dismissing it.

How can you even think to lead EPE (no virus), Duesberg (HIV) and de Harven (retrovirus not HIV) all contradicting each other in the same case.

Is this the reason you sell cellphones for a living?

When you're not being thrown out of political parties as a failed leader.



Ummmm... has Etienne never researched this or published a book on the topic? Is he unqualified by his credentials... and Wait... Didn't Eleni reject presenting her own work? Sorry... not following you.


His research went no further than reading

His book is a little introduction for lay readers to the subject: it's all borrowed.

He is a medical doctor, no more.

He worked with electron microscopes.

His major published work is worthless.

No Eleni didn't 'reject presenting her own work'.

Wake up.

She was not invited to 'present her own work'.

Rasnick tried to limit her to a talk about HIV tests being unreliable.

She responded by nominating me to talk to her 'own work' on the isolation problem.

Rasnick rejected this out of hand: he didn't even reply.

Then he told Celia he wanted only the most expert speakers on a given topic.

Crowe agreed and said only a speaker who'd read thousands of papers and everything could speak.

Then he asked de Harven to speak on Eleni's subject, making himself complicit in his theft of her work.

Even though de Harven knows nothing more about it than what he's read at virusmyth.

This is because of the sort of moral character Crowe has.

He's utterly dishonest.  



[Crowe:] I request deletion of message 4384.

It contains blatant lies.

1. I do not sell cellphones for a living. I have never sold even one cellphone.

OK, you're a businessman in the cellphone business.

2. I was never the leader of the Alberta Greens. I was CFO and President.

You were indeed a leader, in that you were on the executive board.

Stop playing Clinton games.

3. I was not a "failed" anything. As CFO I submitted 7 audited financial statements to the government and all were accepted (all are posted on the Elections Alberta website for review). The new executive failed. They failed to file audited paperwork and they failed to keep the party alive.

You were thrown off the executive board by a democratic vote. The party members thought you and your clique were useless and needed replacing. This qualifies you as a failure in my book.

The reason why the new executive chose to deregister the party that it had just won control of was because it uncovered several serious prima facie criminal acts on your part. I took down the complete report and the supporting documents for the reason that I wanted forward movement on my issues with you and de Harven. You thanked me and said we're making progress. But there's been no progress. You have ducked your responsibilities to clear up the intellectual theft charge your board member made concerning EPE, and more importantly you have failed to deal with your ethically outrageous complicity in de Harven's appropriation of EPE's missing virus science for presentation at the conference in the teeth of her vehement objections.

As I said before, you're obviously a bag of you know what.

Due to these blatant lies the message violates the Yahoo terms of service and must be deleted. Once deleted this message can also be deleted.

I do not tell blatant lies.

You do, and repeatedly.

Including your recently exposed blatant lie to the PG about not having directed Borick's cross-examination of Gallo.

Sadly for you hard evidence of the questions you drew recently come to light.

Showing that you are a blatant liar.

In addition the message contains a obscene insult which is also a violation.

You claim 'your unbelievably stupid head' is an obscene insult .

There you go lying again.




>> She was not invited to "present her own work." Rasnick tried to limit her to a talk about HIV tests being unreliable. She responded by nominating me to talk to her "own work" on the isolation problem. Rasnick rejected this out of hand: he didn't even reply. Then he told Celia he wanted only the most expert speakers on a given topic.

> You known Anthony, if this is true, many of us, including myself, would sign a well written letter sent to David Rasnick and Peter Duesberg and all of RA with a demand that this be addressed and rectified.

Do you really need convincing that this is true?

It's in the PG's divorce papers.

It is outrageous beyond angry words in my vocabulary to fire.

Crowe is finally responsible.

But to him, being a low person, it's just fine.

It accords with his moral values.

Please acquaint yourself with the facts.

I have all the email correspondence in this filthy, stinking affair saved if you need it.

Please draft a letter.

This matter is in desperate need of resolution.

It is the core poison.

And unless resolved it's only going to get worse.

I would not, however, sign on to any overly aggressive letter filled with name-calling, put-downs, or other less than socially acceptable wording.

Does the dishonest stench of Crowe's communication style not choke you?

Does it not disgust you to your marrow, Michael?

I assure you that I can be the very soul of politesse.

But I'm obviously not the man for this letter.

Please intervene.

Even if it will be a waste of time because Crowe will concoct one disingenuous excuse after another to suit the occasion; he always does.




At this point, it is my sincere intent to address it one on one and face to face in November, a little more than a month away, due to the now quite oversensitized defensivess and nervousness of those involved. Any instilling of great fear in those who need to be addressed has likely not helped make this any easier for any of us.

As others are now envisioning their own worst fears of seeing you sitting in your dungeon playing with loaded guns and sharpening instruments of torture, there are most assuredly things you really could do to lessen and even remove that fear that you yourself assisted in creating, that would quite honestly make the task at hand much easier, but I am not sure you are emotionally able or willing to understand or so do such as this as of yet.

We can discuss it if you like, as I and several others have not yet been alienated from those whose assistance and willingness we would need to inspire. And honestly, I think we are moving closer to such every day, and little by little. All the more reason for you to come now to a more positive place of understanding such, because we will need your own assistance to end up with the solutions you might want to see.

I do think it unfortunate that we were unable to work together on this sooner. But such is now water under the bridge. We are all inevitably doing the very best we can with our own individual perceptions and understandings of the situations at hand.


My dear Michael

Many thanks for this.

A few things to bear in mind.

November will be too late.

The burning issue is that Crowe has asked de Harven to give an unauthorized and scientifically corrupted, faulty presentation of Perth Group's science on the missing virus problem, and contemptuous of their objections he persists with his plans.

To participate in the theft of a momentous scientific discovery.

The matter needs resolution before the conference.

If de Harven wants to speak about 'Retroviruses: Of Mice and Men' as originally scheduled, that's fine.

He can also talk about goblins water and sprites.

I'm sure everyone will be terribly impressed.

This will be the quality of science RA is selling, and all will be clear.

But the Perth Group have now formally dissociated from RA, and they are absolutely opposed to any of the self-appointed individuals on the RA board, or any other person, giving an unauthorized presentation of their original science.

I do hope you can mediate a resolution, Michael, and soon.

You can remind Crowe that he set a qualifying criterion for a talk on Eleni's missing virus science and de Harven doesn't meet it.

And if he has any principles he'll apply them.

If Crowe fixes this, watch me 'come to a positive place of understanding' on the double.




Off RA's program Abstracts:

"Etienne De Harven

Questioning the Exististence of HIV" 

Without any other information contained therein, how does one formulate such preposterous statements that De Harven will present Perth's position?

Anthony, Are you trying to start vicious rumors again?  I bet you're speculating given your distaste for anything RA does or by chance do you have in your possession a true synopsis of what De Harven will put forth and if so please do share with the rest of us.



Etienne was to talk on 'Retroviruses: Of Mice and Men'.

He'd have been telling us all about his famous Friend Murine Leukaemia Tumour Virus.

Which the PG have pointed out is complete scientific nonsense.

When Crowe sparked the crisis by supporting Rasnick's rejection of Eleni's request that I present her science on the missing virus problem, as I've done before, he sought to fix it by asking Etienne to present it instead.

Indeed 'De Harven will present Perth's position' save that he'll be making such 'preposterous statements that' Montagnier really did find a retrovirus only it wasn't HIV it was a HERV.

Do you get it now?

If you want a synopsis of what de Harven is set to say look no further than his Haematologica paper discussed by the PG in their divorce papers.

By the way, what have I said before that amounts to 'vicious rumours', which is to say unkind and untrue?



To me, I find it very telling that all of the actually hiv diagnosed dissidents that I know, all of them, greatly appreciate and have a lot of gratitude for Peter Duesberg and his work, even though as far as I know, all of them also believe that Perth is ultimately correct.

This includes Maria, Brian, Jes, Josh, Lindsey and her family, Karri Stokely, and even Christine Maggiore.

I myself think that their voices should be the loudest and carry the most weight in the entire dissident discussion. They know what they found helpful, and they all, except for Christine of course, agree that the divisiveness of late is no help at all. And I am sure everyone knows that Christine herself would have gone absolutely ballistic over the entire situation of late regarding any considerations that Duesberg should be somehow left out.

These people all know what helped them get out of the aids zone. And there is not one among them that does not have a full appreciation for all of RA, and for Perth as well.


Who ever suggested Peter 'should somehow be left out', Michael?

When the truth of it cuts in precisely the opposite direction.

Who among us, the Perth Group included, doesn't 'greatly appreciate and have a lot of gratitude for Peter Duesberg and his work'?

Who among us, the Perth Group included doesn't love Peter, despite our immense scientific differences?

I must say it sounds to me like you've been talking to David Crowe.

This is the sort of perverted, inverted way he speaks.




None of those are official RA viewpoints. Furthermore, de Harven has stated that HIV doesn't exist since at least 1998. Gordon Stewart calls HIV a "putative retrovirus".

Are you suggesting that RA should set up a censorship screen such that only people and articles that explicitly and overtly deny the existence of HIV should be allowed to be published?

- David Crowe

Fuck, this guy is unbelievably thick.


The statement to which I took exception was inherently dishonest, Michael.

It didn't have your fingerprint, but it certainly had Crowe's.

This is why I found it foully 'obnoxious' and this is why I surmised you'd been talking to him, and also maybe dabbing his poor little eyes, since you say he's so awfully wounded by the horrible things I've been saying about him.

After I said:

> Who among us, the Perth Group included, doesn't love Peter, despite our immense scientific differences?

You go and write:

For many, the discussion and much of what had been laid out had come across as a "We hate Peter, David Crowe, and RA" club.

Maybe you need to scoot over to the optometrist tomorrow for a stronger pair of reading glasses.

I've said before that I don't hate David Crowe.

By mischaracterizing my sentiment as hatred, you trivialize Crowe's dismal inadequacies as the self-billed (though unelected) leader of the international AIDS dissident movement.

I don't hate him. I despise him for the harm he has caused us and continues to cause us.

I despise him all the more for his dishonesty, his apparent inability to speak straight: everything twisted, tricky, evasive, self-serving.

If it was in my power, I'd coolly order him arrested and disposed of as a counter-revolutionary, without the slightest twinge of hate for him.

Only contempt.

Unfortunately it isn't.



And what is your ultimate suggestion for the solution to this conundrum Jon?

Is it your suggestion that RA ban all reference to Peter and ban all who would reference Peter?

Is it that the very name of Peter Duesberg be banned from being uttered from the tongues of any dissident, and that any who would dare speak the unmentionable name have their tongues cut out?

Focusing on the problem results only in the problem. Only focusing on solutions can get any beyond the problem.

Just what is your solution to this Jonathan?


Why do you keeping talking this way, Michael?

Why do you do it?

Was I perhaps unfairly blaming Crowe for influencing your debating style, since such a dishonest style in discourse comes naturally to you even without his foul influence?

Who among us has ever advocated censorship?

Is it because dishonestly imputing positions to Crowe's critics that they've never held easier than facing up squarely and honestly to the massive problems with his organization that they're raising.

Like championing what Crowe himself knows to be junk science.

Since you're an avowed RA partisan, financial supporter even, and nothing will come between you.

Like the wife who stays loyal to her husband despite clear evidence of his interest in his step-daughter.

Loyal to a person with no moral values whatsoever.

In the instant case, a person who lies and steals (as an instigator and accomplice) without a qualm.

Would you 'clarify' this for us please Michael?




[1] None of those are official RA viewpoints. [2] Furthermore, de Harven has stated that HIV doesn't exist since at least 1998. [3] Gordon Stewart calls HIV a "putative retrovirus".


- David Crowe

1. This is just the thing.

It's been said over and over: RA doesn't have an 'official viewpoint'.

Rethinking AIDS doesn't have a scientific position on the 'virus' at the centre of the entire thing.

Its scientists contradict each other.

The clearest reflection of the pathetic leadership, intellectual and strategic judgment and acumen of its president.

The reason RA doesn't have a position on 'HIV' is that it puts a higher premium on social clubbiness than on science and scientific advancement.

It's not a truth-seeking organization but a political organization.

2. I'll be dealing with de Harven in a separate mail.

3. Gordon Stewart evidently doesn't know what the fuck's going on.

In 1997 he lent his name to the PG's paper 'HIV Antibodies: Further Questions and a Plea for Clarification' in Current Medical Research and Opinion 13:627-634, in which the PG contended that 'the evidence for the existence of HIV and its putative role in AIDS must be reappraised'.

You'd imagine from this he was with the brains in the movement, and that he appreciated there was no virus.

Two years later, and ten years ago, in October 1999, he wrote a little piece for the Rethinking AIDS newsletter 'A Paradigm Under Pressure' in which he stated.

'In late 1983, Science magazine published a report from the Pasteur Institute in Paris claiming discovery of a new retrovirus in a culture from an enlarged lymph gland in an otherwise asymptomatic homosexual man. Workers at the US National Cancer Institute in Washington then claimed that the new retrovirus in this culture was one which they had already isolated from many homosexual men with AIDS in the USA. The virus presumed to be present in these cultures was pronounced in 1984 by the US Secretary of Health to be the sole cause of AIDS and after some argument about priorities and patents,. named the Human Immune Deficiency Virus (HIV).'

From his statement:

However, with the "discovery" of HIV as the putative, universally infectious retrovirus and the conversion of this hypothesis into a dogma by the consensus, all dissent began to be suppressed by anonymous censorship, which became absolute, amazingly pervasive, and apparently immune from disclosure of conflicts of interests.

You would get the impression that he considered the integrity of the French and American claims to have discovered a new virus be in doubt.

But soon afterwards he banishes any doubt in his own mind:

I accepted HIV as a possible participant in the complex pathogenesis of AIDS

And then cited Peter's harmless virus 'arguments':

In 1987, Professor Peter Duesberg, a pioneer in retrovirology at the University of California in Berkeley, suggested instead that HIV was a latent virus incapable of causing AIDS which was due, in his view, either to suppression of immunity by toxic drugs or to a recrudescence of other diseases. A fuller statement of his view, published by the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences in 1989, caused a furor. Duesberg's arguments were not debated. He was almost universally demonized but not silenced. Indeed, his dilemma became the focus of all doubts about AIDS, from whatever source. This did not help his courageous effort to promote rational debate because, by attracting irresponsible support, it enabled the consensus to discredit responsible doubts.

By playing up Peter's status as an expert who knows what he's doing, Gordon suggested that he was on the right track.

All the more since he failed to mention the correct, radical Perth Group critique: there is no virus.

Despite the fact that he's been a co-author of their paper  'HIV Antibodies: Further Questions and a Plea for Clarification'.

In August last year, in his piece 'AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE HIV HYPOTHESIS OF THE CAUSATION OF AIDS' published on the RA website, Gordon placed himself squarely behind Peter:

The evidence that AIDS was infectious received further support in 1983 when Montagnier et al at the Pasteur Institute, the historic Mecca of virology in Paris, reported the presence in cell cultures of an excised lymph gland of a lymphopathic agent (LAV) thought to be a retrovirus. Professor Montagnier and members of the same group reported later (7) that the lymphopathic properties of the cell culture depended upon the presence of a contaminating mycoplasma but, when they sent it in 1983 to Dr Robert Gallo, leader of a more experienced team working on retroviruses as causes of cancer at the National Cancer Institute of the USA in Berthesda, Md., he and his colleagues confirmed that it yielded a retrovirus which was identical to one (HTLV III) of a lymphotropic group associated with leukaemia which he and experienced colleagues had already isolated also from homosexual men with AIDS in their area, but not from healthy controls. Antibodies to these retroviruses had been detected and the US CDC feared that HTLV III was spreading to general populations in the USA and internationally. Support for this prediction and fear of a pandemic dominated meetings convened in Geneva by the WHO in 1986–87 when LAV/HTLV III was renamed as HIV, the unique cause of AIDS. Reservations had been expressed (6) from 1984 onward, notably in 1987 by a career (and bench) expert in retrovirology, Professor Peter Duesberg of UC Berkeley (8). He agreed that the renamed retrovirus HIV had been isolated but denied that it was pathogenic and insisted that AIDS was due to recurrence of former infectious diseases and/or the use of immunosuppressive therapeutic and recreational drugs. He defended this view vigorously while AIDS expanded in USA eventually to about 800,000 registrations by 2000 and almost a million by 2005 (>3000/mn), more than in any other developed country, mainly because of an excess in black–hispanic minorities in whom STD's, tuberculosis, cervical cancer and misuse of drugs were endemic and increasing. AIDS had been reclassified by WHO in Africa in 1985 to include these and non–specific conditions like recurrent diarrhoea as AIDS.

None of Gordon's references cite the Perth Group's work in which they demonstrate that no virus has ever been shown to exist.

  1. The Durban Declaration. Nature 2000: 406: 15. See also ibid 407; 286.

  2. Newell GR, Mansell PW, Spitz MR. Amer J Med 1985; 78; 811–6.

  3. Lauritsen J, Young I. The AIDS Cult. Provincetown, Asklepios: 1997.

  4. Weekly epidemiological reports, WHO; 1982– date. Geneva. See also HIVAIDS Surveillance Reports, USA 1982–05, revised 2007 and UK Surveillance Updates by Public Health Service Laboratories and Health Protection Agency,1982 – 08.

  5. Stewart GT, The epidemiology and transmission of AIDS: a hypothesis linking behavioural and biological determinants to time, person and place. Genetica 1995; 95; 173–93. See also Lancet 1995; 145; 1241, and Bull Med Ethics 1995; 106;19.

  6. Do, Haro S, Update on sexually–transmissible Diseases. EURO–WHO 1984.

  7. Lemaitre MD, Guetard Y, Henin L et al. Res Virol 1990; 141; 5–16.

  8. Duesberg PH. Cancer Res 1987; 47; 1199 – 1220.

  9. Stewart GT. Lancet 1993; 342; 898, See also Editorial 342; 863–4.

  10. Chin J. The AIDS Pandemic. Oxford, Radcliffe: 2007.

  11. Nature 2007; 447; 531–2. Time for a Change.

  12. See The Independent Newspaper. 24 April, 2008.Report on AIDS Vaccine..

  13. Stewart, GT. Arch Clin Bioethics 1999; II; 56–60. See also Craven BM et al. Economic Issues 2003; 8 (1), 1531.

  14. Bauer HB. The origins, persistence and failings of HIV/AIDS theory.

  15. El–Sadr W, Hoos D. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief – is the Emergency over? New Eng Med J 2008; July 30,2008

  16. Steinbrook R. The AIDS Epidemic – a progress report from Mexico City. Ibid August 20, 2008.

  17. Gupta GR, Parkhurst JO, Ogden JA et al. Structural approaches to HIV prevention. Lancet 2008; 372; 764–75 (August 30).

  18. Steinbrook R. The AIDS epidemic - A progress report from Mexico City. New Eng J Med 2008; 359; 885-7 (August 28)

  19. Bertozzi SM, Laga M, Bautista-Arredondo, Coutinho A.. HIV Prevention Serial 5. Lancet 372; 831-846. See also Piot P, Bartos M,LarsonH,Purmima M. Serial 6. ibid; 372; 845-59 (September 6).

On this evidence, only a liar would dissemble that Gordon disagrees with Peter that 'HIV' exists.

Only a liar would pretend that Gordon is with the Perth Group on the question.

Only a fraud and a crook would seize on Gordon's once-off, early use of the words a 'putative retrovirus' to fabricate the suggestion that he's with the scientific and the strategic brains in the dissident movement.

When quite clearly he's with Peter.

In view of his false accusation of intellectual property theft for which he refuses to apologize, despite the evidence that his false accusation was completely unwarranted (in the 'HIV' debate in Continuum Lanka leaves it to 'the distinguished Australians' to provide 'a detailed reply to the Duesberg claim'), and his appropriation of the PG's identification of the missing virus problem, Etienne de Harven may not be considered a reliable witness, but he complains to me that the trouble with Gordon is that he thinks AIDS is infectious.



David Crowe wrote on 29 September:

I don't mind vulgar insults Claus, but I do object to lies about me, such as Anthony's assertions that I was under criminal investigation as a politician in Alberta. And I will take legal action if they get out of hand.

After Crowe suggested that Paul Last, the author of a report on the reasons for the forced deregistration of the Alberta Greens following Crowe's ouster from the executive board, didn't exist as a real individual and that the documentary evidence made available to him (and provided to me by a third party) was 'mythical' which is to say was fraudulently manufactured to falsely inculpate Crowe in criminal wrongdoing, I sought the comment of the Greens' Joe Anglin.

He replied on 22 September:

I communicated with Paul Last on numerous occasions and showed him the documentation referenced in his on-line posts. To the best of my knowledge everything Paul has stated is accurate. I certainly can attest to the accuracy of the documents. I can't explain Crowe's behavior and/or mental condition, but I will attest to the accuracy of Paul's posts, as I read them. […] I have not heard from Paul in quite a while, but if you need me to reconfirm his post, send me a copy and I will attest to it.

For the record. I have submitted evidence to the authorities alleging David Crowe created false documents, subject to both allegations of forgery and fraud. This is now a matter of public record. […]

Further, I am in the process of submitting an affidavit alleging Crowe has now stolen the Alberta Greens URL from my account in violation of our agreement. In summary if he is convicted, he will be a common thief.

I took down Last's report and supporting documents from my RA page, against an understanding that for as long as the report and documents were posted on my site Crowe would not deal with my complaints that:

1. Etienne de Harven had made a false charge of scientific plagiarism against Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos in regard to her original discovery of the missing virus problem, which he was refusing to retract despite the evidence presented to him proving that that his charge was wrong;

2. At Crowe's instance Etienne de Harven will be plagiarizing Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos's original discovery of the missing virus problem at RA's November conference in that he will be presenting it without her authority, against her wishes, without due attribution to her, and in mangled damaged form, in order to stabilize the junk-science 'retrovirology' construct on which he and  Peter Duesberg have built their professional fame. 

The matter could not be more serious: a false charge of scientific plagiarism, and actual scientific plagiarism in relation to the most important scientific work in our time.

Crowe responded first by thanking me for taking down the incriminating materials concerning his conduct in the Greens and said:

Thank you, I think this is progress.

The 'progress' was one-way, in his direction only.

Dishonouring the implicit bargain struck with me, he refused to deal with my concerns.  

First, on 20 September, he refused to intervene in calling RA board member de Harven to account for falsely charging EPE with scientific plagiarism:

I am not involved in the Lanka-de Harven-Perth dispute.

Etienne made a statement and stated that if he was proven wrong he would withdraw it. He did not make that statement on behalf of RA.

I am still not clear when the first documented  statement overtly (and not implicitly) questioning the existence of HIV was made. I am also of the opinion that a dispute over scientific priority is rather pointless at this time.

Save to say that these statements speak volumes about David Crowe's phenomenal casual dishonesty/deliberate ignorance, and his dismal leadership ability and intelligence, further comment would be superfluous.

Next, Michael Geiger wrote to me on 25 September:

Yesterday, you asked for my assistance on asserting a matter of importance to most as for working things out in time for the conference. As you said, after will be too late.
I immediately composed exactly such, with all good reasons and sent it to the 3 most influential people in positions to decide the matter.
Anthony. I hope you will listen and understand.
It has been shown to you and well demonstrated that many factors that you very likely did not consider while being taken over by the emotionality of the subject at hand.
In this emotionality, many individuals, in particular the 3 individuals whose assistance I now need, have felt extremely hurt by your words and actions.
Although I have gotten back a semi-positive reaction from one, it was not a fully positive response as he was not willing to make such changes in time for the conference though certainly open to such after it.
It is extremely doubtful to me that without a miracle, the other 2 decision makers will go against the one, and will likely follow along, as they too are also likely unable to be able to step out of their own also very hurt emotions to just jump up and agree to my suggestions after what they all surely felt and experienced to be a nightmare of pain and disappointment to have now been inflicted upon them, and most, as I am sure you know, due to your own words and actions.

And on he gushed about how hurt everyone's feelings were, that the 'impasse' was all my fault, and that I should apologize to everyone.

There was no suggestion that the three RA board members he approached had any sense of anything remiss on their end, much less of the need for any remedial action on their part, let alone any apology.

I have therefore noted that RA will not intervene to help expunge de Harven's false plagiarism charge against EPE, and that RA intends to make itself complicit in de Harven's own plagiarism of EPE's Copernican scientific discovery of the missing virus problem.

When persistent patient diplomacy over many months fails, one must turn to more direct means.

My persistent attempts to resolve the extremely serious problems that I've identified by way of repeated private internal communications ahead of the RA2009 conference have failed.

I now intend adopting firmer measures.

As the Zulu king Shaka said, 'Those who won't listen must feel.'



This forum is now being controlled by a Crowe ally, former RA webmaster Brian Carter.

Presumably he also believes in Duesberg's HIV.

 In CIA parlance, Brian Carter is an RA asset.

And as in Operation Phoenix with the CIA selectively assassinating Vietnamese intellectuals, the first thing the RA asset Brian Carter does, just like an American, is rub out one of the sharpest, best informed AIDS dissidents I've met, and a respected supporter and close associate of the Perth Group: Claus Jensen, an Aberdeen University-educated Dane living in Thailand.

Jensen tells me he's been deleted from the membership list of this forum.

I surmise this was in response to his hot reaction to Crowe's revolting, gangster-like threat to mobilize his American political connections and sue his critics to silence them: I mean silence them with threats of litigation, not with litigation itself, since Crowe would never risk a defamation suit entailing high energy cross-examination over a few very revealing days:

> This is a serious issue. I have been investigating legal action. I had put
> the matter aside, relative to you, because of your actions, but if you
> undo them, everything changes.
> If you don't believe that I can launch a lawsuit in the US think again.
> 99% of my income comes from the US, I am a director of two US-based
> non-profits and have many other ties.

Apparently it's acceptable to the RA asset for Crowe to employ this kind of latently violent language, but it's not acceptable for Jensen to parody it with violent profanity.

Like it's OK for Americans to bomb villagers in faraway countries, as long as they first say a prayer to their God and sport an American flag pin on their lapel.

It's long been apparent to many of his detractors that Crowe has 'other ties'.

Even though I'm always saying to them in his defence, when they insist, that I don't see the evidence of this that they do.

Now he boasts openly of having undisclosed political ties to mobilize against those who criticize him.

This is the person who runs RA and now controls the discourse on this forum via his newly placed asset.

Who also just happens to control the other major message board, AME.

An American media conglomerate, the all American way.

Watch the discussion dumb down to Crowe's level accordingly.



Dear All

On 25 September Etienne de Harven wrote in the HIVAIDSPARADIGM forum:

In response to Anthony Brink's Sept 24 message [at the foot of this email] , I thought you all would be interested in reading the following:

In "Ten Lies about AIDS"'s  Foreword by Anthony Brink: "Notwithstanding its startling and almost unimaginably radical point of departure, this book can't simply be dismissed as any sort of unhinged raving, because Etienne de Harven is a medical scientist of the highest rank and a widely published pioneering expert in the electron microscopy of viruses, no less. And in these matters no one sensible can say he doesn't know what he's talking about." 

Moreover, on page 131 of "Ten Lies about AIDS", the following statement is made: "The concept of an "epidemic", officially based on the contagiousness of "HIV", was soon rocked even harder in 1994 when a German virologist, Stefan Lanka, voiced the most serious doubts about the very existence of "HIV"." 

I had asked Anthony Brink to proof-read the entire book, in 2007, and I am grateful for the highly professional job he did on that. But I must emphasize that he didn't raise the slightest objection to the page 131 statement copied above.

First my statement in the foreword to Etienne's book.

Following the paragraph Etienne quotes, the next one goes:

I met Etienne de Harven at the first meeting of President Mbeki's International AIDS Advisory Panel in May 2000, and since then I have counted him as one of my dearest friends; and no trip to Europe is satisfactory without at least two lunches together.

I must say though – to echo 1993 Chemistry Nobel Laureate Dr Kary Mullis's disclaimer in his foreword to Professor Peter Duesberg's Inventing the AIDS Virus – that Etienne and I do no see eye to eye on everything written in this book. This is because since running into the trouble with the HIV theory of AIDS eleven years ago, a great deal more than just "HIV" has gone up in smoke for me: I'm referring to the very fundamentals of infectious disease theory generally (here Etienne throws up his hands and says, "But I'm a classical pathologist!").

That said,' and here I'm paraphrasing my next concluding paragraph, the book will nonetheless disabuse you of the notion that lovemaking with your new girlfriend can kill you and that drinking poison can keep you well or make you better.

The reason I found it necessary to insert this unusual disclaimer is because as I read the manuscript, so much of it was at odds with my own understanding that I didn't want to appear to be endorsing it unreservedly.

I'd been asked both to proof-read it and write a foreword.

The proof-reading was a painful exercise.

How do you tell your friend that his book about which he's so enthusiastic is full of fundamental mistakes?

There came a point where I gave up on marking content fixes, and limited myself largely to typos because it was evident to me that the manuscript needed massive and radical revision.

But it was Etienne's book, not mine, Etienne's thinking, not mine, and it wasn't for me to rewrite his book for him.

In any case, he wouldn't have wanted me to, because he fervently believes what he believes and isn't open to radical, fresh perspectives:

When at lunch together in France in 2006 I suggested that the whole of virology was rubbish and that the cellular products or phenomena observed and conventionally considered to be disease-causing viruses might rather be produced by stressed cells, Etienne responded by confirming that he was familiar with this idea and said a certain biologist in his laboratory or in his professional orbit (whom he named) 'used to terrify us' (him, Charlotte Friend and others) with it.

It was in this context that Etienne expostulated, 'But I'm a classical pathologist!' suggesting that the concept was too far out for him to take on board.

Or maybe it called for too radical a revision of his scientific understanding and learning, and the abandonment of the sort of science he was known for.

Point is Etienne knew all along that I consider the whole of virology to be junk, retrovirology included.

(I've held this opinion since early 2000, and had mooted it to Eleni on the phone before the first meeting of Mbeki's International AIDS Advisory Panel in May.) 

So when in the foreword I puffed Etienne as 'a medical scientist of the highest rank and a widely published pioneering expert in the electron microscopy of viruses, no less. And in these matters no one sensible can say he doesn't know what he's talking about', I was tipping my hat to his establishment status as an expert in a subject I knew to be junk. I wanted the lay reader to accept his formal credentials apropos of the broad thrust of his case summarized in the concluding paragraph of my foreword: you can't die from making out with your new girlfriend, and drinking poison doesn't make or keep you well.

I didn't want readers to think I believe in viruses and retroviruses as Etienne does, hence the disclaimer.

I knew of Etienne's claims to have purified the Friend virus and had seen the micrograph, but gave it no particular thought and didn't cite it in any of my writing.

The Perth Group have since interrogated and deconstructed Etienne's Friend virus purification and isolation claim, his most famous work, and the best that can be said is that his professional incompetence is so pitiful it brings a lump to the throat.

And no one need have known of this upsetting and humiliating matter had Etienne not over-reached himself and forced the Perth Group's hand by trying to displace them as the originators of the Copernican observation that the AIDS virus has never been shown to exist by isolation via purification.

Which brings us to the second issue.

Etienne's quotes from his book.

"The concept of an "epidemic", officially based on the contagiousness of "HIV", was soon rocked even harder in 1994 when a German virologist, Stefan Lanka, voiced the most serious doubts about the very existence of "HIV"." 

I had asked Anthony Brink to proof-read the entire book, in 2007, and I am grateful for the highly professional job he did on that. But I must emphasize that he didn't raise the slightest objection to the page 131 statement copied above.

Indeed I left this unchallenged.

[email posted before completion]  See HERE and HERE on the priority question.



Page 128: in recalling the formation of the Group, 'the initial meeting included Peter Duesberg' and seven others mentioned including the lawyer Phil Johnson but omits Eleni, one of the very earliest, original founding members, whose seminal paper, Reappraising AIDS …., lent the group, with her permission, its name.

Page 130

In 1991, a prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, published an article seriously questioning the validity of the principal serological test (the Western Blot test). The lack of specificity was confirmed in 1993 by a group pf Australian researchers, working in Perth, who published their study in another high-level scientific journal, Nature/Biotechnology. The Australian group, comprising Eleni Papadopulos, Valendar Turner and several others, lost no time in establishing themselves as eloquent spokesmen for ideas that began to be described as those of the "AIDS dissidents".

Next de H canvasses dissident articles, books and letters, 'starting with those of Peter Duesberg in 1987', moving on to Farber, Hodgkinson, and Gordon Stewart. The concept of an "epidemic", officially based on the contagiousness of "HIV", was soon rocked even harder in 1994 when a German virologist, Stefan Lanka, voiced the most serious doubts about the very existence of "HIV". Numerous dissidents began, at this time, to ask themselves questions about the scientific validity of the methods used in 1983-4, methods that had led to the pretended isolation of "HIV". And today, doubts about the very existence of "HIV" are shared by the majority of dissidents!

Mentions Mbeki's meeting: It was during this first conference that one of the authors of this book (EDH) formally pointed out that no "HIV" particles had ever been seen with an electron microscope in the blood of supposedly "high viral load" AIDS patients.

Errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum.

In HAPPILY WE HAVE INTERNET, he lists RA first, then virusmyth, then aidsmyth, then duesberg, then Giraldo, then pg, then alive and well etc.

As if the PG's internet archive of scientific work is equivalent.

Four PG papers are cited in the bibliography, but not the MTC monograph with appendix XI, nor the MH paper showing M never isolated any retrovirus.

Seven of de H's papers and articles under Retroviruses, with Lanka's Artefact article thrown in, as if these are the seminal papers on the missing virus problem