The Perth Group write to Celia Farber apropos of her blog post 'Montagnier's Mea Culpa'

10 December 2009


Dear Celia,

Montagnier's mea culpa occurred during the Djamel Tahi interview in 1997.  Unfortunately the dissidents ignored it.  It appears that some of us are much greater aficionados of Montagnier's virus than Montagnier himself.  Celia, just imagine for a moment how the efforts to control the AIDS problem, including the lives of others, may have been different if we had acted then.  Instead, even now, you talk about a "sexually transmissible retrovirus" and your friends remain silent.  And your most admired friend, David Crowe, pokes fun at Montagnier while expressing admiration for "his [Montagnier's] idea" of oxidative stress.  The only thing Crowe cannot do is take on "the virus".  The notion of questioning whether there is a virus to cause AIDS seems to put him in a state of permanent paralysis.  In fact, looking at his website, the virus is not just a "harmless passenger virus" but now "the long-sought-after "magic" bullet" which will cure humanity of its worst plague, cancer.  When you and some of your friends lower your guard, you admit the PG science may be correct.  That is, to date no one has published any evidence to prove the existence of "HIV".  But the next moment you say the dissidents should keep silent about this because it is very hard for anyone to understand such arguments.  One wonders why you and your friends think that only you can understand the argument and even worse, "the argument being a difficult one to verify currently may not be the best argument".  Does taking on the "HIV" frighten you Celia?

Your friend David Crowe appears to have the best approach.  Let us have as many people as possible questioning the existence of "HIV" as long as (a) what they claim makes no scientific sense;  (b) they do not mention the PG's scientific arguments give us no credit.  That would amount to "unreasonable demands".  In other words, let's falsify both the science and the history.  For whose benefit? 

Celia, we agree that Brent, his producers, crew and everyone else involved in making this film a reality deserves our "Hearty congratulations", admiration and gratitude.  They performed a miracle.  In the shortest time they were able to see (a) that the problem is scientific;  (b) what is the basic problem;  (c) how to address it.  Brent studied and became knowledgeable about the subject and had the courage to ask the right questions.  Meantime, back at the ranch, while RA is telling everybody about "neutralising antibodies", which turn Gallo's immune destroying virus into a friendly, "passenger" virus,  Brent is asking "What antibodies and what virus"?  Brent and his backers were quick to see the truth and even quicker to make it public.  Ironically, Brent could have presented the truth about HIV and AIDS without interviewing a single dissident.  He was able to make the "HIV" experts themselves provide all the necessary evidence.

Celia, let's not ignore the opportunity Brent's film has provided.  Let us help him and not do to him what we did to Djamel.

Best wishes,

Eleni and Val and the PG