The Unbelievable Mediocrity of David Crowe:

Why Rethinking AIDS has the president it deserves

‘What your actions have in common is they are directed against the Perth Group.’

Perth Group to Crowe, 3 December 2008

Please note that many important documents by the Perth Group are posted on this website only and are not accessible at the Perth Group’s site, www.theperthgroup.com.

A summary introduction and overview of the crisis in the AIDS dissident movement will be posted soon.

This site is growing constantly; please check it regularly.

LATEST

The Perth Group’s open letter to Professor Jean Umber concerning his article ‘What if HIV was simply a natural sign of cellular death (apoptosis)’ posted by Crowe on his ARAS website, ‘(copyright 2007 – Jean Umber and the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society)’ – which is to say, these ideas belong to Jean Umber and David Crowe. Claus Jensen comments on Umber’s latest theory and the Perth Group respond

Transcript of the Perth Group’s evidence in the Parenzee case, which Crowe refused to buy at their request with the cash Jim Wolfe wired him specifically to support them

Crowe is sued by the Alberta Greens Party Society for an order directing him to hand over unlawfully withheld financial information; read the full story

‘I never wrote cross-examination text for [Parenzee defence counsel Kevin Borick]’, Crowe claimed in his response to the Perth Group’s indictment of his fatal interference in the case – a blatant lie, the Perth Group discovered and pointed out in their statement dissociating from Crowe’s RA group on 18 September 2009. See for yourself the ‘cross-examination text’ Crowe wrote for Borick, the ‘cross-examination text’ he falsely denied having written, and see how, to quote the Perth Group, it is ‘characterised by questions which are mostly inconsequential, irrelevant, unconnected with the agreed defence strategy and harmful, even to a “HIV exists but does not cause AIDS” strategy’. (Note: the black ball-pen marks are Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s.)

The Perth Group responds to an open letter from Fabio Franchi; Crowe replies

Celia Farber comes out cluelessly defending Crowe’s abortion of the Parenzee case on her blog The Truth Barrier and then proceeds to suppress all critical responses; read Brink’s posts she censored in the light of her false justifications for doing so

How David Crowe contrived to ensure that the scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident movement, the Perth Group, would not attend his Rethinking AIDS conference in Oakland, California, in November 2009 – With reflections on the Parenzee case

Hit the hot button links

• TIG POSITION STATEMENT ON ‘HIV’

• Commencing with Brink’s ‘tokoloshe letter‘ on 23 July 2009, the main action in the discussion of Crowe’s conduct as RA president at www.aidsmythexposed.com (redacted from the full thread to cut the noise), saved and archived here before the host got nervous and pulled it from his server;

• Some clarification of the Perth Group’s contributions to ‘HIV’/AIDS debate – a summary of their work which Crowe refused to publish on the RA website. Now why would he do a thing like that?

• How Crowe sabotaged the Parenzee case: pertinent excerpts from an email exchange between him and the Perth Group, together with their comments The Perth group found Crowe’s further response to their indictment of his conduct just too feeble to reply to (More hard evidence subsequently emerged of his fatal interference in the case, as well as his deceitfulness about it, all of which is canvassed in the Perth Group’s statement dissociating from RA below);

• Appendix I: the Perth Group go looking for RA past president Professor Etienne de Harven’s famous Friend murine leukaemia virus, and just don’t find it;

• Appendix II: the Perth Group relate how Harvey Bialy blew the first adsorption experiment agreed at the second meeting of Mbeki’s AIDS Advisory Panel and contrived to ensure that the pivotal isolation experiment was never conducted;

• Brink’s and other posts at the HIVAIDSPARADIGM discussion forum, 25 July - 30 September 2009, pointing up Crowe’s dismal performance as president of RA and his habitual dishonesty;

• The RA board (= Crowe) responds to criticism of Crowe by posting a notice supporting him on 12 August 2009 on their website, in which they specifically endorse his conduct in aborting the Parenzee case;

• Sadun Kal in Berlin taxes Crowe on RA’s failure do do anything about ‘the Duesberg effect’, the way his ‘pseudoscience’ dominates AIDS orthodox/dissident discourse; and as usual Crowe replies contemptibly poorly (28 August - 12 September 2009);

• A History of Rethinking AIDS (not to be confused with the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis);

• Is AZT a DNA chain terminator? The phenomenal stupidity of David Rasnick;

• The Perth Group: Commentary on the Rethinking AIDS Trap brochure, September 2009;

• ‘The AIDS Trap’ as an illustration of the quality and level of AIDS science promoted by RA president David Crowe and his board;

• The Perth Group formally dissociates from Rethinking AIDS in view of ‘irreconcilable differences’, 18 September 2009;

• ‘Citizen Crowe’: Janine Roberts details how Crowe tried hijacking her letter to Science project; and in a covering comment Brink explains how the episode vividly laid bare Crowe’s extraordinary unscrupulousness and megalomania;

• ‘The so-called Letter to Science,’ writes Claus Jensen (see also RA’s press release announcing it), ‘has been touted as a great success by its authors, Janine Roberts and David Crowe, and it is generally considered one of Rethinking AIDS’s success stories.’ In fact it was a shambles: ‘The Roberts-Crowe Letter to Science has indeed caused damage, but not to Gallo or Science. It has served to redirect focus from the real scientific issues to peripheral and largely irrelevant questions of editorial practices in Gallo’s lab, as well as made the signatories the laughing stock of the scientific establishment.’ Roberts responds; Jensen and Eugene Semon reply. Crowe’s moronic reaction: ‘Those who can’t, or won’t, criticize...’; Roberts responds again; Brink, Jensen, West, and Semon all reply further;

• Jim West performs a close reading of RA/Roberts/Crowe’s ‘Letter to Science’ and finds it ‘mostly falsehood, innuendo, and drama. It arrogates prior dissident and orthodox work. It requests the retraction of the 1984 Gallo papers, claiming they don’t prove HIV causation, yet neither Popovic nor Gallo claim proof of causation. With false evidence, it portrays a deliberately fraudulent Gallo, portrays Popovic contradicting Gallo, and portrays differences between draft and published paper. It mixes and confuses. It appears manipulative’; Roberts responds and West replies;

• Crowe comes out in defence of the letter to Science, and Brink replies;

• In Deconstructing Duesberg: A Critique of ‘HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS – A new perspective’, Claus Jensen points up the defects in Duesberg’s failed attempt at debunking Chigwedere et al. ‘Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa‘, JAIDS 49(4):410-15, 1 Dec 08; Duesberg circulates a rebuttal nominally drawn by a third party (but co-written by Crowe: it’s marked all over with his characteristically vapid style of verbose argumentation, his favourite limp turns of phrase, his anodyne rhetorical tricks and generally his fingerprint stupidity and dishonesty); Jensen responds by asking Duesberg some questions arising – which as usual go unanswered (Duesberg habitually pretends he has trouble hearing whenever asked hard questions); Duesberg challenges Jensen to write his own critique of the Chigwedere et al. paper, and Jensen obliges: here’s the first part (more to follow);

• The Perth Group ask Crowe to read a one-line statement at the RA conference in Oakland, San Francisco, on 6-8 November 2009, confirming that they have dissociated themselves from RA on account of ‘irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences’ (note: ‘ethical differences’ too); and in typically stupid and dishonest terms Crowe refuses, thereby misleading the conference attendees;

• Veteran AIDS dissident Michael Ellner of NYC notifies his reasons for boycotting the RA conference;

• Watch Michael Tracey, the famous bumbler aptly picked by Crowe to deliver the keynote speech, tell the RA conference: ‘It seems to me that it is overwhelmingly clear that you have the argument on your side. ... The question you have to ask yourself is where do you go from here tactically and strategically? As I say, tactically and strategically what do you? I actually think – I was talking with Clark Baker ... an ex-cop and I think he has a superb idea working with my friend Rodney Richards sitting there (points) – you need a really bloody good trial.’ Well gee, isn’t this what the Perth Group were saying for years? And what happened when they finally landed ‘a really bloody good trial’, an historical opportunity to have the existence of ‘HIV’ judicially tried and determined? Contemptuous of an explicit resolution passed by the RA board to stay out of the case, Crowe, a cell-phone businessman, comes bumbling in and wrecks it – stupidly and dishonestly justifying himself afterwards, deceitfully too (p11ff);

• A letter to Georg von Wintzingerode explaining the tricks Crowe pulled at the RA 2009 conference;

• The Perth Group corrects Crowe’s misrepresentation of their position concerning the oxidative nature of semen;

• The Perth Group respond to Crowe’s abysmal ignorance concerning semen and AIDS again;

• RA board member Charles Geshekter tries outsmarting the Perth Group on the subject, and gets smartly sorted out;

• The ever gushing lies of David Crowe (‘Nobody spoke on [the Perth Group’s] behalf at RA 2009 and I am generally opposed to having speakers speak “on behalf” of someone else.’);

• The further gushing lies of David Crowe and his slimy defamation of Anthony Brink. Exposing which, Etienne de Harven’s false charge that the Perth Group are scientific plagiarists gets a close look;

• Claus Jensen takes Etienne de Harven’s so-called ‘alternative’ to pieces, and shows that it’s nothing more than a mangled version of the Perth Group’s critique;

• Crowe offers his usual sober perspective on himself and his accomplishments. Brink begs to differ. Bauer gently butts in to teach by another fine example how debate should be conducted among gentlemen;

• Sadun Kal appeals to Crowe to engage with his critics, and gets told to bugger off;

• The Perth Group on Etienne De Harven’s and Andrew Maniotis’s ‘unnecessary hypotheses’ that ‘HIV’ is an ‘endogenous retrovirus/endogenous retroviral sequence/retroid’ – but with which ‘unnecessary hypotheses’, trying to sound clever and original, they stupidly persist. See how playing the same game, always wanting to be the clever boy, Maniotis first omits to cite and then casually tries to discredit the Perth Group’s groundbreaking redox theory of carcinogenesis; as the Perth Group privately remarked on his foolish reply, Maniotis evidently hadn’t bothered to actually read and understand their seminal redox paper;

• The Perth Group write to Celia Farber about her ‘friend’, her ‘most admired friend David Crowe’; the unbelievably stupid claim on his website (saved here in case Crowe tries removing it) that ‘HIV’ may cure cancer (you’ll see RA board member Henry Bauer goes for it too, but then again old Henry even goes for sea monsters); her belief in ‘HIV’ as a ‘sexually transmissible retrovirus’ (why, that’s what Peter Duesberg reckons) – and they ask why it ‘frightens’ her so much to consider that ‘HIV’ might not have been proved to exist after all. Farber and Crowe reply dismally. Check out Farber’s completely screwed up incidental mention of the Perth Group’s work in her book ‘Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS’, and decide for yourself whether her ‘History of AIDS’ is ‘Uncensored’ or not. See how Crowe can’t even get his most basic facts straight;

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

• On 15 December 2009 the Perth Group make public their dissociation from RA by way of a notice on their website;

• What’s happened to AIDSMYTHEXPOSED? (postscript: it’s back). See also Revolte unter Dissidenten, a German blog open for comments;

• Claus Jensen on Crowe’s strategic genius;

• How Crowe contrived to ensure that the scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident movement, the Perth Group, would not attend his Rethinking AIDS conference in Oakland, California, in November 2009 – With reflections on the Parenzee case;

• Brink’s posts censored by Celia Farber with false justifications as she suppresses all critical responses to her clueless defence of Crowe’s abortion of the Parenzee case on her blog The Truth Barrier;

• The Perth Group responds to an open letter from Fabio Franchi; Crowe replies;

• Here’s the ‘cross-examination text’ that Crowe falsely denied having written for Borick to ask Gallo in the Parenzee case: ‘I never wrote cross-examination text for him,’ he claimed in his response to the Perth Group’s indictment of his fatal interference in the case – a blatant lie, the Perth Group discovered and pointed out in their statement dissociating from Crowe’s RA group on 18 September 2009. See how, to quote the Perth Group, Crowe’s ‘cross-examination text’ is ‘characterised by questions which are mostly inconsequential, irrelevant, unconnected with the agreed defence strategy and harmful, even to a “HIV exists but does not cause AIDS” strategy’ (note: the black ball-pen marks are Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s);

• Crowe is sued by the Alberta Greens Party Society for an order directing him to hand over unlawfully withheld financial information; read the full story;

• Transcript of the Perth Group’s evidence in the Parenzee case, which Crowe refused to buy at their request with the money Jim Wolfe gave him specifically to support them;

• The Perth Group’s open letter to Professor Jean Umber concerning his article ‘What if HIV was simply a natural sign of cellular death (apoptosis)’ posted by Crowe on his ARAS website, ‘(copyright 2007 – Jean Umber and the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society)’ – which is to say, these ideas belong to Jean Umber and David Crowe. Claus Jensen comments on Umber’s latest theory and the Perth Group respond