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.’

The Perth Group to Crowe, 3 December 2008

‘The focus on AIDS is in South Africa and Anthony knows more about this and the

drugs used there than anybody else. … What stands out about Anthony is that

although he is not a scientist he has extensive scientific knowledge. ... As a result

of his training, intellect, interest, hard work and burning desire to help his people

Anthony was able, more than anybody else, to see the harm that Crowe has done

to the dissident movement. Without any effort to find out the facts or even to read

the summaries put in front of them in The Perth Group Response To David Crowe Re

The Parenzee Hearing document, Celia and others, including the RA Board of Directors,

expressed full support for Crowe’s interference in the Parenzee case.’

The Perth Group public statement dissociating from Crowe’s Rethinking AIDS group,

September 2009

‘There is no doubt that Crowe has done a lot of harm to the Perth Group. But the

harm he has done us is insignificant compared to the harm he has done the dissident

movement, to Peter himself and to those at risk of AIDS.’

The Perth Group to the AIDS dissident community: ‘Is the dissident science

“highly questionable”, “embarrassing” and “damaging”?’, September 2010

‘Crowe has destroyed the dissident movement, and you can quote me.’

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos to Brink, May 2011

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

This site is growing constantly; best check it regularly.

For the latest posts, at the foot of the page, CLICK.

Hit the red hot button links:

•  TIG POSITION STATEMENT ON ‘HIV’.

•  A History of Rethinking AIDS (not to be confused with the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis). Compare it with the official HISTORY (formerly ‘About RA’)  – but then what do you expect if Crowe wrote it?

•  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?

•  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 – and later conspired with Crowe’s supporters to steal the entire forum; see below.

•  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 absorption 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, specifically endorsing his conduct in sabotaging the Parenzee case, notwithstanding that they’d formally resolved that he and other members of the RA board/group must stay out of it.

•  Sadun Kal taxes Crowe on RA’s failure to 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).

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

•  The Perth Group’s 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 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 sickening unscrupulousness, egocentricity, 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.’ 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 and here’s the next.

•  The Perth Group ask Crowe to read a one-line statement at his 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. More sharp observations in December 2011.

•  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.

•  Sadun Kal quits RA.

•  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 (‘interesting’ he calls it; 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, piddly, incidental mention of the Perth Group’s enormous scientific corpus 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 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 subsequently 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’s prodigious dishonesty on the board of the Alberta Greens, continuing after being thrown off it; see supporting documents linked.

•  Crowe has a go at blackmail, with lies, to extort the withdrawal of litigation against him for an order preventing him and his friends from continuing to conduct themselves as executive members of the Alberta Greens, after being voted out at a party meeting, and after agreeing not to continue pretending they were still in charge: two affidavits (note: Anglin has never worked in New York).

•  Crowe is sued again for an order directing him to hand over financial information unlawfully withheld from the Alberta Greens Party Society.

•  Transcripts 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; with a link to the Perth Group’s PowerPoint slide presentations of their evidence.

•  Transcripts of the prosecution witnesses’ evidence, summations, and judgment; and further appeals in the Parenzee case.

•  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.

•  Perth Group founder Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s critical comments and suggestions on the draft of Henry Bauer’s article ‘Iatrogenic Harm following “HIV” Testing’, sent to her for peer review by Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons editor Lawrence Huntoon. As with his previous article that he got Huntoon to send her to review (see her ‘P.S.’), Bauer ignored her comments concerning both his science and his ethics, and Huntoon proceeded to publish Bauer’s dismal article as is, without heeding them either.

•  A letter sent by Brink and Jensen to the editor of Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons about Henry Bauer’s dismal articles ‘Incongruous Age Distributions of HIV Infections and Deaths from HIV Disease: Where Is the Latent Period Between HIV Infection and AIDS?’ and ‘HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests’, published in 2008 and 2010. (Too long, responded editor Lawrence Huntoon, only ‘500 words or less’ could be considered.)

•  Brink’s open letters to RA board/group member Christian Fiala on science and politics and his dissident conference in Vienna, July 2010.

• The Perth Group ask the dissident community in an open letter: ‘Is the dissident science “highly questionable”, “embarrassing” and “damaging”?’ With a hard look at the science and the ethics of Etienne de Harven and Henry Bauer.

•  A note from the Perth Group concerning the Zapata AZT wrongful death case (read the incredibly ineptly drawn complaint by Duesberg’s and Leppo’s attorney). It turns out that the deceased didn’t even have cancer as alleged – as alleged caused by AZT: he died of a disseminated fungal infection: see paragraphs 49 and 50 of the GlaxoSmithKline’s expert’s report. See Andrew Maniotis’s useless, characteristically unfocused, gushing go at rebuttal.

•  The Brains Behind RA: In January 2000, then Rethinking AIDS president David Rasnick (later to pick Crowe to start and run the current RA group) responded to eight scientific questions about AIDS put to him by South African President Thabo Mbeki. In a submission to Mbeki in March, the Perth Group corrected all Rasnick’s elementary scientific mistakes. Rasnick responded a few days later. Read him and weep.

•  Professor Marco Ruggiero’s Existential Virology by Claus Jensen. Some basic questions by the Perth Group that RA’s new scientific star is evading.

•  Beneath Ruggiero’s Rainbow by Fabio Franchi. Ruggiero’s dubious history with GcMAF.

•  An exchange between Crowe and the Perth Group, July 2011. It’s a model illustration of Crowe’s pusillanimity, presumptuousness, cringing aggressive-defensiveness, crooked small-time political huckster debating style, insincere obsequiousness, bone-headed scientific ignorance, psychological projection, fundamental dishonesty, and general intellectual mediocrity. The Perth Group redirect him to the essential issues he constantly avoids.

• A letter to RA group/board member Roberto Giraldo.

• Crowe plugs Duesberg on Facebook.

•  Terry Michael dissociates from RA.

•  Crowe cans his Washington conference.

•  Steve Stannard talks with Claus Jensen on 'The "HIV" Symposium' blog about the London launch of Joan Shenton's film 'Positively False - Birth of a Heresy' and the issues that hinder us. Plus Norman Finkelstein on civility in discourse, quoted below the exchange.

•  Revisiting Etienne de Harven's  claim to fame. (He quits RA in November 2011.)

•  Maniotis still pushing his retroids.

• The basic questions posed by the Perth Group that Crowe repeatedly promised then refused to answer; plus the Perth Group responds to Eugene Semon.

•  The Perth Group set Andrew Maniotis straight on DNA recombination which he thinks is Christl Meyer's novel insight.

• The Perth Group: 'The HIV Puzzle': In June 2012 Martin Barnes held an AIDS dissident conference in the south of France. The issue topping his agenda was 'The HIV puzzle -- what is being measured?' The Perth Group answer the question and address the legal strategy implications arising from it.

• The Perth Group and Andrew Maniotis talk about cancer, September 2012.

•  The Perth Group comment on responses to their article, 'The HIV Puzzle'.

•  How David Crowe lost the Parenzee case in three appeal applications to the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia, and the High Court of Australia, and then persistently lied about it afterwards.

• The Perth Group revisits the matter of 'retroviruses' in their 'Comments on Martin Barnes's Vers Pont du Gard Conference Report', 18 April 2013

This page is maintained by Anthony Brink, chairman of the Treatment Information Group. 

All writing is Brink’s, unless indicated otherwise. Click here to email.

Claus Jensen is posting incisive analyses on his ‘HIV’ Symposium blog.

Rod Knoll runs a dedicated discussion forum, ‘Rethinking AIDS’ Exposed.

*