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