Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I wanted to point readers to the following article:

Outing the Dissident Orthodoxy, and Putting the Patient First

First of all, I again want to reiterate that the comments I am making on this venue are MY OWN opinions and NOT the stated or implied endorsement of The AIDSMythExposed.com forum itself. I will just say that I disagree with the use of the term "orthodoxy" in the article linked above only because it could imply that the RA/"HIV exists but is harmless" view may be "generally accepted" or "widely held". We all know that is not the case outside the dissident movement, but I also question how widely held or generally accepted that view is even WITHIN the dissident community. The dissident "orthodoxy" to which Scheff refers is more of a pseudo-leadership, IMHO, and it's a leadership that was hardly democratically elected.

For more on this, please see the next message in this thread...

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

The following exchange is from Anthony Brink. You may read more about him at his web site:

Anthony Brink bio

First is an e-mail from a woman who had questions about AIDS dissidence and the Rethinking AIDS group in particular.

From: Onnie Mary Phuthe

Sent: 22 July 2009 10:13 PM

To: arbrink@iafrica.com

Cc: johanbeaurain; darren

Subject: Rethinking Aids

I came across the Rethinking Aids web.

I contacted Mr. David Crowe [David.Crowe@aras.ab.ca] since I wanted to attend he conference for 2009 Nov 4 but have no money.

I have huge interest in HIV and Aids; I have lived with HIV since 1994. I have seen for myself many things that truly support rethinking aids.

I really wish to be in contact with people who think in line with the rethink aids group since I am already living rethink aids. I really feel deceived by all the info being pushed by big pharma and crooked scientists, most of all I really feel pity for all the people who have believed what they heard with no question.

I am the kind of person who does not believe anything until I can also prove it myself. I don’t have a college education only form 4 but learn more at ke fodile, wena? (still under construction). The end of it will make me more enemies than friends about myself. Nevertheless, one thing I have personally witnessed is that most of the lies have come with 99% of the drug pushing diagnoses that are made on humans. It seems very important to treat people at the expense of their lives, health, and financial stability, and worst of all, a devastated mental state in the name of profit.

I truly thought I was in denial or crazy since I questioned everything and I did not believe all I heard. One thing I believe is that food, herbs, water, sunlight, unrefined sea salt, and others are the missing link between the human being of today and the past generations.

All disease that are identified come with a huge profit margin, and second they also comes with a huge cost for the humans involved. The question is animals are in the wild but manage well without vets. Whereas humans because they know and can buy are never fully treated, but rather are always lead to believe what is not true about their bodies.

Disappointing enough, but how can we trust scientists and their discoveries? I know what genuine research looks like.

It looks like this: all the board members, scientists, founders, directors and all others of Rethinking AIDS > Home ( DNN 4.3.5 ) and all their associates. I wish to learn with more clarity the puzzle that I am also putting together; I am missing some pieces here.

I really need to talk to other people who might think similar thoughts. When I talk to others in my country, I already see a threat of people fearing to tell the truth in favour of the funding they get from the spear-headers of the lies of the century.

I have made an ad at the link below. I do not want funding from the same people who got us in the mess, except those who want to deal with me will pay for themselves for the herbs I personally use. I get them fresh and prepare them raw. I am afraid to verbalize all that I know, because maybe I will be caught, I don’t know, but the thing is, does anyone else know what the truth is? If they know, why are we still being told the same lie over and over again, that is why I am afraid. There is something in it for those who choose to conceal the facts.

The challenge is that when it’s been almost thirty years of lies then it’s a challenge to make a statement to a brainwashed society (the world), plus the businesses would collapse if people knew and accepted the truth as it is.

View

(Ed. note: click on word "View" above for ad)

Onnie Mary Phuthe
Botswana

(Brink's reply follows in next message)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Here, now, is PART ONE of Brink's reply which he wanted me to post. (Part two follows in the next message).

I am hoping Brink will soon be posting on this forum himself, but, in the meantime, here goes:

From: Anthony Brink [mailto:arbrink@iafrica.com]

Sent: 23 July 2009 03:33 PM

To: (Onnie)

Cc: Ayanda Dasi; 'JOHAN BEAURAIN'; 'darren'

Subject: RE: Rethinking Aids

Importance: High

Dear Onnie

Thanks for your email.

Very nice hearing from you.

We see things in much the same way.

As a fellow African, a pale African in my case, you need to know a few things about 'Rethinking AIDS', and you might want to share this information with your friends and family in Botswana so that they are not also misled about what this organization is.

'Rethinking AIDS' is basically a support group for Professor Peter Duesberg at the University of California, Berkeley, California in America, to promote and defend his scientific views on AIDS.

To see this you only have to go to 'About RA': About RA

Apart from reading about him there, and even finding a link to his website, you'll also read there an account of how and why 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis' was originally formed and its past activities.

Nowhere in the 'About RA' page is there any mention of the generally recognized scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident movement: the Australian physicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues (the Perth Group), who even before the publication of Duesberg's critique of the HIV theory of AIDS in 1987, on the basis that 'retroviruses' are always harmless, were already onto the real, more basic reason why the theory is wrong: 'HIV' has never been proven to exist.

You ask in your email, 'how can we trust scientists and their discoveries? I know what genuine research looks like.'

What you need to do is satisfy yourself about this by reading into the matter yourself.

You mustn't take things on authority. Like one of the Rethinking AIDS board members, a very senior member of the board, who says more or less: 'Duesberg's clever and experienced so I just go with what he says.'

It may interest you to know that to the best of my knowledge nobody who has read Duesberg's and the Perth Group's respective papers, and particularly their debate on whether 'HIV' exists, has come away with the conclusion that Duesberg is right that 'HIV' has been proved to exist, and that the Perth Group is wrong to claim that in truth and in fact 'HIV' has never been proved to exist.

Everyone who has studied the scientific disagreement between them has concluded that Duesberg is wrong.

This includes former South African Presidents Mbeki and Motlanthe (the latter currently Deputy President under President Zuma).

All of us feel rather embarrassed about this.

But it's awkward to say something like: 'My father, you need to take a bath, you really do. Everyone around you is noticing and saying so.'

It's so much easier just to pinch our noses and say nothing.

By the early years of our new century, 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis' had disintegrated.

It was dead.

In 2006 a Canadian businessman called David Crowe decided to form a new organization under his control.

He collected around him a handful of AIDS dissidents that he knew wouldn't give him any problems, and he formed a 'board of directors', most of whom are either active Duesberg partisans or 'sleepers' in the sense that they don't actively conduct themselves as directors should and do not express any disagreement with Mr Crowe (when one tries, we'll read below, Mr Crowe fixes him.)

This makes it easy for Mr Crowe to run things pretty much on his own along American lines.

It's a bit like the Treatment Action Campaign here in South Africa, which although it has many formal office bearers, is completely dominated and controlled by Zackie Achmat. Everyone knows this.

Now Mr Crowe needs to keep things running on American lines, because as usual that's where the money is.

Isn't it always so, Onnie? Don't we feel it over here in Africa all the time?!

Rethinking AIDS is funded by the same rich person who funds Duesberg, and do you know this same person even sits on the board of Rethinking AIDS, meaning he has the clout to govern its scientific policy? Can you believe such a thing, Onnie?

When one of the Rethinking AIDS board members tries breaking ranks and privately challenges Mr Crowe recently in a small closed internet forum about the things he says and does, whether in his opinion they're right or wrong, true or false, do you know that Mr Crowe sends him a demand by email that he should shut his mouth and in future submit any communications to that forum for him for prior censorship, just to make sure that the disobedient board member doesn't challenge Mr Crowe ever again? Can you believe your ears, Onnie?!

All of this makes it possible for Mr Crowe to run his show the way he wants it unaccountably to the international AIDS dissident community, and to pretend to the outside world that the little organization he formed in 2006 speaks for us all.

Obviously Mr Crowe made his move to form Rethinking AIDS in 2006 behind the scenes without telling the rest of us.

He did not contact every dissident on the list of those who'd signed their support for our basic cause that the HIV-AIDS hypothesis should be re-examined (see About RA page) and announce, 'I reckon it's a good idea to form a new AIDS dissident organization, what do you think? Please nominate yourself if you like and/or some other dissidents for election to a provisional representative body to discuss purpose and direction, scientific policy and operating strategy.'

That's not the way Mr Crowe works!

Behind the scenes is the way he works!

He wanted to make sure that Rethinking AIDS doesn't do any rethinking about anything important, anything really important such as whether 'HIV', which is at the core of the 'HIV-AIDS' construct, even exists.

No, we can't have that, Onnie!

We must stay off that matter!

This is why Mr Crowe made a point of snubbing the Perth Group and rejecting their request for representation on the board when they got to hear what he was up to behind the scenes.

Appropriating the name of the Group's former bulletin, Mr Crowe called his new organization Rethinking AIDS.

From this name and to read 'About RA' on his website, you get the impression that Rethinking AIDS is much the same scientific initiative as the Group.

People who don't know the real history will be deceived by this, but that's the whole idea!

In fact Rethinking AIDS is in no sense a representative organization, and it doesn't speak for the vast majority of AIDS dissidents who reject Duesberg's claim it promotes that 'HIV' has been shown to exist as childish scientific nonsense.

These structural, organizational and legitimacy issues aside, the main problem with Mr Crowe's Rethinking AIDS organization is that it promotes the lie that 'HIV' exists, just as the drug-pushing AIDS doctors, activists, journalists and academics say, only Rethinking AIDS says it's harmless.

(PART TWO CONTINUED IN NEXT MESSAGE)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

(PART TWO OF BRINK'S REPLY)

This is like telling a child terrified by a noise outside his or her bedroom at night:

'Don't worry, my child, it's only a tokoloshe, it's definitely a tokoloshe. Never mind what everyone believes and tells you, the tokoloshe lurking outside your window won't come in and harm you. Just go back to sleep.'

You say this to the child knowing it's a lie, but you tell the lie to the child anyway because you think it's best to tell lies, maybe because telling lies comes naturally to you in your daily life and in your business dealings and you have a habit of telling lies and responding to what people say with emotive and disingenuous half-truths, and so you're comfortable with lies and half-truths, and/or because you think the child can't cope with the simple truth that tokoloshes exist only in the human imagination.

So it's better to tell the child a lie. The lie that tokoloshes really do exist. Even though it's quite easy to show they haven’t ever been proven to exist by the generally accepted procedure for proving things like this. And if anyone else comes into the room who has heard the child's cries, and says, 'There's no need to worry, my child, there's no tokoloshe outside, there are no tokoloshes', you say: 'Get out! Be quiet! You mustn't say this. It's too complicated for children to be told things like this. It will only confuse them.'

That's the approach to the problem of 'HIV-AIDS' taken by Mr Crowe's Rethinking AIDS organization.

This is how Mr Crowe thinks the myth of HIV-AIDS will be resolved.

He thinks the myth of HIV-AIDS will be resolved with lies.

But when you raise this matter with him, he says, 'But I have been questioning the existence of tokoloshes for many years.'

He doesn't say, 'I agree there are no tokoloshes in the real world.'

He says, 'I have been questioning the existence of tokoloshes for many years.'

Of course this is the kind of thing successful scheming politicians say, because it's evasive, self-serving, convenient and basically dishonest.

I mean successful in getting to be where they want to be for themselves.

I don't mean successful in serving the constituency they claim to represent.

Mr Crowe never says anything as directly truthful as 'There are no tokoloshes in the real world', because that would make it difficult for him as the self-appointed king of the tiny little country he's formed that's cut off from the rest of the world, which no one in the rest of the world recognizes, like Transkei and Bophuthatswana in apartheid South Africa, advised by a witchdoctor who says tokoloshes are very, very real, but are harmless.

What he worries about most is being king of his little country.

Like Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Front, claiming in 1965 to be the Prime Minister of all of Zimbabwe (then named Rhodesia after the businessman who stole the country). When actually he was representing only the tiniest minority of very foolish people.

We know all about people like this over here in Africa, don't we Onnie?

But Mr Crowe likes the feeling of being the king; it's almost as nice as the feeling one gets from being the president of a Rotary Club in a little town in the middle of nowhere that no one wants to go to.

Sorry, I should have said President, President with a capital P, because Mr Crowe always announces himself with a capital P.

He realizes that to deal with the underlying problems caused by his witchdoctor whose views about tokoloshes he promotes, even though deep inside he knows that they're lies, and the problems he causes us by the way he runs things in doing everything possible to prevent a proper ventilation of these lies, would mean the end of his reign as king with the crown he put on his own head, or asked a couple of his friends to put on his head. And he'd have to give up being the king, the king he likes being so much, either by abdicating in disgrace or being kicked out in disgrace with a hard boot up his arse for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement, and remembered forever for the tremendous harm he's caused our AIDS dissident movement.

Particularly in the big case held by the elders in the shade of the big tree in the centre of the village concerning whether a certain man was causing the tokoloshe to come riding in on a hyena in the middle of the night when everyone was asleep to visit his neighbour and cause his cow to die and his mother to hurt her leg in a fall and his cousin to fail his exams.

In that case, the man accused had expert witnesses to explain to the court that he couldn't have done what he was being accused of having done because tokoloshes have never been proved to exist. And right in the middle of the case when it was going very well for the accused man and his expert witnesses, and everyone was noticing and commenting on how impressed the court was by the scientific evidence and arguments being presented, the President comes along, and behind the scenes he furtively tells the lawyer 'You're going to lose the case doing it this way, it's much better to tell the court that tokoloshes do exist, only they're harmless.' And not being a very bright lawyer, who also hasn't really had enough time to appreciate what's wrong with this kind of defence, and why the first and second defences are not complementary or alternative but must necessarily be mutually destructive, the lawyer thinks the President is right, why, he's the President of all the AIDS dissidents in the world, and he changes the defence strategy right in the middle of the case, when it was going very well as I said, and with that the case is on its way to hell, so that the unfortunate accused man ends up severely punished for calling out tokoloshes to visit and cause his neighbour's cow to die and his mother to hurt her leg in a fall and his cousin to fail his exams, and the historical opportunity is lost, the historical opportunity to show in court that despite what nearly everyone thinks and all the witchdoctors claim, actually tokoloshes have never been shown to exist.

And when it's all over the President doesn't even say I'm very sorry about the calamity I caused, I'm terribly sorry, I was only trying to help. I realize now that it's been pointed out to me that I made the most horrendous mistake. I feel sick to my stomach over what I have done.

No, he says, What are you complaining about? I did exactly the right thing going behind your backs and telling the lawyer to change his fundamental defence strategy right in the middle of the case and introduce a new defence that contradicts the original one.

He says, Go and jump in the lake, you and your complaints against me and what I did. You were going to lose the case anyway. I'd do it again!

So you see, Onnie, it would be better to avoid Rethinking AIDS for information about so-called HIV-AIDS.

It's always best to avoid taking advice from people who tell lies and behave in the way I've told you about.

You can get honest, reliable information about the basic trouble with the HIV theory of AIDS from the The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website.

My TIG Position Statement on 'HIV' will put you fully in the picture.

All the best

Anthony

Cape Town

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Well well well... Hmm... As Scheff puts it all this is really an issue of how much we care about the science and therefore the human race as a whole, and how much we can tolerate sacrificing "a little" science and patients for an X amount of comfort for a few people.

I enjoyed Brink's email a lot but I don't think it's entirely fair. And I'm not sure if it's the best timing for all this. Either way, I guess there is no return now.

I hope this causes an open conversation to start instead of more fury and depression. Maybe it's about time. It looks like David Crowe's reaction will play a big role in how things develop at this stage. I hope he'll agree that a change appears to be necessary. I can't imagine how the current status quo can be peacefully sustained with things like these. Let's hope and strive for the best I'd say... Things can get out of control if we're not careful.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I don't like this infighting.

I think the RA site is terrific. I have never understood Duesberg's characterization of HIV as a passenger virus, however, and like most other members here am inclined toward the Perth Group's hypothesis.

The aggressive talk in some of the links belies the tremendous civility and objectivity in any of the Perth Group's messages and I believe their adherents should follow their example.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Well John, I have been following rethinking for five years or more, and I can promise you that the Perth group has tried many times to have the debate with RA, but RA never does. I believe that infighting is happening because of stubborness on behalf of Peter Duesberg and RA. I agree that Anthony Brink's letter is unfriendly in places but sometimes it has to happen to solve a problem. I hope RA will do what is necessary to solve their "Duesberg" problem because the problem has been confusing for dissidents and for the media. The media believes that everyone follows Peter Duesberg but most people don't, they follow Perth who have the best research on Robert Gallo and Luc Montagners first experiments. I hope this brings RA to face their hidden issue or the "Duesberg Dilema" which has been a problem for years. So I disagree that it is a problem to discuss it because I think that it has to come out sometime and now is as good a time as ever.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I'll give another "Well - well - well" here too, like Sadun.

This is the way I see it all. My belief is that Anthony Brinks has pegged David Crowe wrong and is making assertions that may not be absolutely true. Remember you're hearing only one side of the story.

But may I point out, one thing that comes to my mind, about the call that RA is only Duesbergian supporters; David Rasnik, a long time board member of RA has said recently on public radio that the virus exists, albeit not in the way you might think.

But generally speaking: Do any of "US" have it right? Think about it.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

actually i find duesberg's assertions more credible.
it would be interesting to know how simon found out that most people prefer the perth group's view.

this may be one of those areas where for now dissidents need to agree to disagree in order to be able to move forward united.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Agreeing to disagree is one thing and refusing to discuss it without giving any reason is another. This is not a disagreement like where there is SOO much unknown and both parties can say "Well we can't know for sure but I think this is more probable". I mean we're not talking about whether or not there are other intelligent life forms in outer space... There is a somewhat easily verifiable scientific truth staring us in the face and there is a refusal to look at it and engage in a scientific pursuit for absolute clarification.

Even if it is possible to agree to be unscientific and move forward united despite it, which I began to doubt for obvious reasons, that is going to require some serious effort from both sides. I'm afraid it's no longer realistic to expect the "Perth partisans" to conform without being given any clear reason to do so. Nobody is encouraged to conform to the AIDS orthodoxy and perhaps the "Dissident Orthodoxy" doesn't deserve an exception. There have been many discussions on this point and apparently the reasons offered so far weren't powerful enough to soothe the fundamental urges of some people to be truthful, hence things like Outing the Dissident Orthodoxy, and Putting the Patient First...

For me it's hard to foresee what will happen if we take this step or that one. Will Duesberg commit suicide if we "put the patient first"? Will Crowe swear to take revenge but rather end up becoming a depressed ARV junkie? Would we regret it if such things happen or would it seem like it was worth it years from now? Would the dissidence crumble or shine? If it crumbles, can it rise from the ashes again?

Ahem... Those are rather fantastic questions I suppose, but considering our ignorance of all the details they might not be too insane. Well ok... they probably are, I hope they are, but right now such questions are interesting thought exercises. Obviously I would appreciate being better informed on certain things though, like how Crowe and Duesberg exactly feel about all this for example.

To be honest I "secretly" believe that what's currently happening will be good for us all in the end. But due to my uncertainties I have no desire to take any responsibility or significantly support any argument. All I can passionately support is more and better communication right now. If that doesn't happen the apparent waves of change may have unpredictable and undesirable results.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

sadunkal - you need to chill.

not a single dissident has had the resources at hand to proof or disproof duesberg or the perth group theories. they are all working on a shoestring budget compared to the establishment.

for that reason alone it is simply not possible to claim that either side is right. all that results in is more bickering. which we do not need.

what we all agree on however is that hiv -if it exists- does not cause aids.

thats about the most important common denominator we share. on that we need to build. and until we can demonstrate which dissident group is right it would be prudent to agree to disagree on this issue until more important battles have been won.

anything else is just weakening our and therefore also your position when facing the mainstream.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

"WhereIs"

No, you're wrong. Duesberg has been proved wrong many times over by now. His message means that you should be able to find one HIV strand and everybody knows no one can. Peter Duesberg is wrong about that and he always has been. He agrees with the mainstream that there only one thing and no one can find the thing but they find many parts. Thats what the Perth group research proved and no one has ever refuted it. Even Peter Duesberg hasn't refuted it. You have a problem that a lot of dissidents have which is you cant choose a side but you have to.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

This is absurd. What you're suggesting is that a bunch of largely lay-people politicize the science. Politicized, polarized science is my fundamental problem with the AIDS establishment. You can't do science with assumed conclusions and fixed positions. If, in fact, Duesberg and Crowe have dug their heels in to that point, it's unfortunate. The whole point is that what looks to be a premature consensus regarding HIV choked the life out of the process of scientific research on alternate theories. Because of that everybody from Duesberg to the Perth Group have no funding or support to test their theories and publish in peer reviewed journals. For anyone to say that any of this is proved or disproved is just premature and choosing a side prematurely is what created this mess. Uncertainty is uncomfortable, but without it, science dies.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

No you are wrong. It has been 20 years of Peter Duesbergs theory that there is one HIV, adn 30 years of the mainstream theory that there is one HIV. But everybody knows that there is no one HIV particle or thing. It's very simple to see that Peter Duesberg is wrong adn his theory of harmless HIV is wrong. The mainstream is wrong. But Perths analysis of HIV that it is many identities and parts is true. If HIV was one thing you could find it but you know it cant be found as one particle. There are many things. Peter Duesberg is wrong. How do you fight the mainstream with a wrong theory? Its just stupid.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

simon

you make some pretty hefty claims such. can you provide any evidence or data that back your claims up?

whats not helping either is to dilute our objective here: that the cause of aids is not hiv.

i do not care about whether or not duesberg and david crowe or the perth group get along or not. it is not relevant to me.

what is relevant is clear evidence. and to my knowledge neither the perth group nor duesberg have been able to provide that, other than alternative hypothesis as to what is causing aids.

you say that cavid crowe is making enemies of the perth group. can you tell me where and when that has happened? can you provide a link to anything that is not just a mere difference in opinion?

fact is that neither the dissidents nor the mainstream know what is causing aids. but the dissidents model as to what is going on is a great deal more convincing. is it proof? no. do we at this point in time need to establish a 'mainstream type dogma' to make our point? no.

what we need is unity and leadership that is confidence inspiring as well as building consensus. we have that more than we ever had before. and in all these years dissidents never avoided any open debate about any of these issues. unlike the mainstream. and it should remain that way until there is definite scientific proof which hypothesis is correct. and even then an open debate remains a must.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

When I was about 10, my mother, who was in the midst of a brutal divorce, turned to her two daughters for no apparent reason and said, "Never reject a person; reject only the bad things that they do."

I'm hearing a lot of people rejection, and it hurts. When you throw away people, you throw away so much potential for good in the world.

The first person who got thrown away in this exchange was Mary -- the African woman who wrote to Anthony Brink. She came to Anthony for help and understanding, and what she got was a description of our infighting and nowhere to turn as an alternative. After that, more bodies just piled up: David Crowe, Peter Duesberg, all of RA -- all rejected people.

I really do hear the frustration. I agree. This is a new, frozen "orthodoxy" that I have no use for. And a bureaucratic way of dealing with each other, and a stupidity in public relations and communications that is beyond belief. We can all freeze in our positions and become movements of one, or we can look for something better.

I can't justify what just happened to Mary. Anthony, I hope you will apologize to her and offer her some real support. And I'm not rejecting you, just this thing you did. It's not right. I'm sorry I have to say this publicly and not privately; I wish I could help you save face. But this needs to be said publicly because everyone here needs to self-examine on this issue.

What we are objecting to is very bad indeed -- if I hear you right, it's an insularity and an irrelevance to what will really help people "out there" just because a few people think they've got the "right" scientific theory and don't want to move. They're rendering their whole argument moot. It doesn't lead to any treatments for real illnesses. Read the link to what Liam wrote, and I think it expresses it pretty well. "The most important people are the PATIENTS." This includes anyone who comes to us for help, like Mary. A black American recently told me there is an urgent need for "a place to go." (To his credit, David Crowe is one of those "places to go." He takes the calls and answers the questions. I reject some of what he's done, but I don't reject him.)

This is all about evidence, not people. Not our egoes, or getting to be right. Not even MY getting to be right, and I'm pretty certain that this post is going to get me declared wrong. I don't care. What I care about is evidence, and Sadun says it's not being considered here. People are getting in the way.

I keep hearing that we're at "war," and I hate that. I really do. This war paradigm is not constructive, and you're finally seeing the consequences of that. Being at "war," being the righteous hippie activists against the Establishment, has turned us against each other. People who get to practice being right against a big wrong will eventually practice it against each other.

War encourages us to think of ourselves as victims of attacks. Victims get to blame others for their failures. Whenever an initiative doesn't work out, we can just say, The Establishment crushed us again. Poor us.

The only way out I can see is just to help others. Show them a sanctuary and a place to go for help. In memory of Christine, who did this. She never turned a single person away.

Beth

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Nice post, Beth.

There are actually far more than two alternative AIDS theories. Maniotis actually listed a dozen of them - cytomegalovirus, syphillis the great imposter, and others. Possibly the fundamental problem of the orthodoxy is its cloaking its own theory in a shroud of certainty. God forbid that we do the same. So even though I lean toward the PG's theory, the others have a rightful place in the arena too.

I have great admiration for David, the PG, Duesberg and Rasnick. Fighting in lieu of objective debate and discussion is a big mistake.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

The Perth group has clearly proved that Hiv does not exist. Neither do retroviruses exist.

Robert Gallo is not a scientist neither is Antony Facci a scientist neither is Peter Duessberg a scientist.

Scientists, in medical biochemistry and medical microbiology, do no exist, because these fields do not recognize the vitalistic dynamic of life and therefore can never provide accurate models for medical interventions. This is why the real and only test of medical science is the cureative outcomes of treatment. There are no cures for any chronic diseases in conventional medicine, despite billion of dollar of reseach by allegeded science, is precisely because it rests on a foundation of non science.

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

The best than can be expected is a high degree of skill in logic and philosophy to be able to accurately deconstruct the inherent absurdities of quasi scientific theories. Jane Roberts, the Perth group and Stephen Lanka are examples of competent scientific deconstructionists.

The fields of medical biochemistry and medical microbiology have never been anything more than a front industry designed to give cover for the business of allopathic medicine which requires rationals, no matter how unscientific, for marketing treatments, tests, and procedures. The existence of this vast irrational, treatment defective cult, is the myth which most needs to be exposed.

Dissidents might what to rethink what myths need rethinking and exposing. Focusing on the junk science of Peter Duessberg, when the problem is the myth of science in general, doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I think Beth has made important points and I'm not comfortable with Simon's certainty. But whereistheproof and John, I'm not sure if you understand the issue here. It's not about choosing one dogma over the other. Not for me at least. It's just that in science claims need to be backed up with evidence and logical arguments. Questions and counter-arguments need to be answered. That's exactly what the AIDS orthodoxy refuses to do and sadly it doesn't look so different with the Dissident Orthodoxy either. That's where all this comes from. It's not like there is a disagreement despite vigorous discussions, but rather we're stuck because there are no vigorous discussions at all. It has nothing to do with budgets, it's simply about intentions.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

This is right. But Sadun is wrong because there is good science and bad science and Sadun knows this because he wrote the Duesberg softspot so he knows there is bad science. If you want to fight bad science you cant use bad science.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I don't think I suggested that we should fight bad science with bad science. I didn't even use words like "fight" and "bad". What exactly do you think I'm wrong about Simon? I'm not sure I understood.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

because likely wrong" is wrong after 20 years. I answered already on the other thread sorry to mix them up. you would say the mainstream is wrong wouldnt you? I do. So Peter Duesberg is wrong for exactly the same reasons there is no HIV particle that is a whole thing and there are many things taht are HIV so its not "a harmless retrovirus" so he is wrong.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Briefly answered in the other thread.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

i think its ok to say what you're saying. I'm grateful for Duesberg being an initial voice of opposition to the orthodox theory, but that doesn't mean that everything coming from his mouth is gospel.

We all know that he accepted the Perth Group's challenge to show that isolation of HIV has been achieved... though i always suspected he did this for the personal motivation of being accepted back into the fold of mainstream science, again. His theory is that HIV doesn't cause AIDS... And thus saying HIV exists..that doesn't hurt his theory really, one way or the other.

I think his theory of poppers and drug use is a bit too simplified. But, of course, its coming from a sensible place. Toxins from drugs, the environment, etc, are definitely part of the discussion.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

This is true! He had balls back then and still in a way. And I think it would be best if he would admit where he is also wrong and where Perth and others are right. I think he is not a bad person at all but only that he is wrong in his theory. But I do think he has hidden out from confronting it.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

For me, saying that "HIV exists" is like saying that ghosts exist. We know that ghosts exist in the minds of some people. If ghosts exist in the "real world," we would have had substantial evidence by now, but you "can't prove a negative." That's okay, because science is obtained by following the scientific method, not by philosophical (or other) speculation. Any kind of speculation (even a dream) can lead to a scientific discovery, but you have to do the actual scientific demonstration at some point, which hasn't been done for "HIV" or ghosts.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Onnie Mary Phuthe in Botswana replies to Brink’s ‘tokoloshe letter’ concerning David Crowe and Rethinking AIDS:

Ok, Elizabeth IS right about something. I AM going to declare her WRONG, or more specifically, I'm declaring HER WORDS wrong. It is important to distinguish between criticism of the words and actions that people have taken in this "war" which are now thankfully and finally at long last being seriously questioned and ad hoc personal criticism of the individual himself or herself.

And, to the extent that one's words and actions may give others an indication of one's psyche...SO BE IT. What is so wrong with letting the chips fall where they may, giving others ALL INFORMATION about someone's words and actions and letting others decide FOR THEMSELVES what to think about someone based upon ALL available information?

And while we are all being encouraged to "self-examine" on these issues, the last time I checked, we are all big boys and girls in this movement. No one promised any of us a freakin' rose garden when we each decided to join this movement. I've seen a lot of pressure both from within AND outside the movement since I started way back in the early days of the protease inhibitor onslaught of the mid 1990's.

I think the expression that applies is here "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"...and at this rate, preferably the SOONER the BETTER. If this intramural "war" is too much for you to handle, how the hell are you going to endure anything the AIDS industry is going to throw at you??

Elizabeth is also right about another thing, this SHOULD be "all about evidence". However, the people who have introduced emotions into this ongoing skirmish-among them, guilt and SHAME, as one prominent RA supporter recently invoked against Perth supporters on a private e-mail list-are invariably the RA people.

What follows is my evidence which should prove to any perceptive reader still reading this forum that Elizabeth is wrong about the woman she incorrectly identified in her message as "Mary". The woman's name is actually Onnie Mary Phuthe. Below are two e-mails sent to Anthony Brink by Onnie.

I will gladly let our more perceptive readers decide for themselves whether or not Onnie feels Anthony has "thrown her away" and whether or not Brink needs to apologize to her.

I will deal with more issues raised by Elizabteh in a subsequent message. Lastly, to those who may be celebrating:

Happy Christmas in July!

Here, now, is Onnie's first new e-mail to Anthony Brink

-----Original Message-----
From: Onnie Mary Phuthe […]
Sent: 23 July 2009 07:19 PM
To: 'Anthony Brink'
Subject: RE: Thank you for the brain transplant, now I can think clearly

Brink

I see, now I have eyes, I understand, now I have a brain.

God bless you. Now the question is how can I share all this?
[…]
The other alternative is to register an organisation called Kefodile just like my web page ke fodile, wena?. I am still constructing the page. I have no college education so the critics will be sure to attack me, but I am ready, since I am working with my heart and working from personal experiences, trial and error, to be alive today.

Kefodile means I am healed. I chose the name since I have seen myself heal the worst with only food and water, and the right frame of mind, but today it truly has meaning.

I am trying not to take all matters personally, but I can't accept the deception.

You and the doctor at http://www.google.co.bw/urlq=http://...0UYhNvIiwWM7Ew has made me more than ever to say it’s not fair.

I don’t know what to say really, this is a very unfair world for money and prestige to over rule human life.

You are indeed a self-made man and because of that, you are unstoppable. Thank you for your wonderful web creations and most of all for being very blunt with the information. I am currently erasing all I knew and I am starting afresh. I will rely on your site for fresh empowerment.

After I saw the water cure article about AIDS, I called the Assistant Minister of Health in Botswana and said to him, “You have all lied to us.” I am sure now that he does not know he is lying.

The painful thing is that all people see it as OK to have an HIV+ test result and then jump right into the ARVs. I saw a doctor at Milpark, Dr Shaa, who checked me out thoroughly for why I was having spinal nerve damage. She concluded with confidence that it was the ARVs. She wrote me a letter to give my doctor who is also part of the BOTSWANA HARVARD AIDS RESEACH UNIT, but he said, no way, it could not be the drugs. They were the third set. I had been on nvp since 2001 + Combivir which has AZT. I was stopped because I had 0.76 white blood cells (severe bone marrow suppression). They only pulled out the AZT and left the nvp.

I took ARVs 1 month alternating for 2 years and now I have finally stopped 4 months ago. I did this because when I take them consistently I can’t even coordinate and complete a sensible sentence, I cannot walk or sit, or see clearly. I felt they were to blame for all my complaints. The doctor insists I take them, and I said well they can’t make me take ARVs if I see them worsening rather than bettering my health. I use alt treatment, water, sea salt and food. That is it. Today I tell you that I’d be dead if I did not do that. Thank God, today I have no regrets.

Take care

I have UNSUBSCRIBED from the mailing list of Rethinking AIDS > Home ( DNN 4.3.5 )

THANK YOU Sir Anthony Brink

Onnie Mary Phuthe
[…]
Botswana

SECOND E-MAIL FROM ONNIE MARY TO ANTHONY BRINK:

-----Original Message-----
From: Onnie Mary Moyo Phuthe […]
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:33 PM
To: 'Anthony Brink'
Subject: RE: DAVID CROWE AND RETHINKING AIDS: BRINK'S 'TOKOLOSHE LETTER'

Good, I would like to post our exchange on my blog. My identity is not a problem because all that has happened, happened in public so I am all for it.

My real names can be used. I don't mind at all, and having a real person is also a credible thing. I will stand for the critics.

I have already posted the two links you gave me earlier, so I’ll add Welcome to AIDS Myth Exposed.

My blog email address is kefodile@gmail.com.

Whatever it takes to get everyone to understand must be done. I am willing to do it, and I've wanted to do it, and that is why I started the blog.

I wasn't fuelled enough thanks to the amnesia I just had about all the old theories of AIDS, and now I can do it better. That bottle of AZT says it all. They should have asked us HIV/AIDS diagnosed patients to jump from a tall building. It would have hurt as much as the ARVs have.

This is serious cruelty to humankind, 30 years of it, and I can imagine how many people have died especially from the psychological effects of the information flying around.

All the drug-pushing acts must stop, even if it means organizations must lose the funding they have been getting. That is fair enough. We must all put the people 1st and profits last. We should now get people sourcing funds to help the brainwashed people of the world.
[…]
Thank you, very much Mr Brink

Onnie Mary Phuthe
[…]
Botswana

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Now that Onnie Mary Phuthe's emails to me have been published in this forum, I'd like to ask Beth Ely whether she still considers that I owe Onnie an apology.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Back to the original post...

This has been a festering boil in "AIDS dissidence" for years. I think Liam is putting RA's balls to the wall and asking for a debate within the "dissident community" on the best alternative theory.

If you read his post at reducetheburden, you might understand what he's getting at, and how much sense it makes...for those who've been diagnosed with AIDS, i.e., the patients. This is a group that often gets forgotten about in "dissidence" (sorry, but I have to use quotation marks as I see most of dissidence as little more than wishful thinking, navel-gazing and thumb twiddling). I believe part of why Liam wrote this has to do with so many "dissidents" not taking care of their health as they've been told that they have HIV, but it's harmless, i.e., since they don't have a killer retrovirus, everything's ok. We've seen it time and time again, "dissidents" raging at the machine, only to succumb to health problems, even death. I've dealt with this with a couple of friends of mine recently.

So, what Liam appears to be proposing is a very practical alternative to the HIV exists but doesn't cause AIDS model. It gets into areas that people may not be comfortable with, like nutrition (crazy talk!!) and health maintenance, which mainstream science mostly ignores and even rejects at times, as if the only things that can maintain health are drugs and surgery.

This is very patient-centered, and less activism. It also rightly states that what's called HIV is not a singular particle (show me the proof if it is), but a myriad of lab phenomena and even outright assumption (as in Africa). So, maybe you could call it Perthian, but that wouldn't be quite correct, and would be an oversimplification.

Nevertheless, part of this festering boil of "AIDS dissidence" is how Perth is left out to dry as the Duesbergites attempt to run the show, at least as far as RA goes.

I'm not into the whole Perth vs. Duesberg thing. But as far as a scientific debate goes, I'd give Perth the win. Duesberg doesn't make sense. He contradicts himself. But, I really don't care so much as I'm much more interested in "AIDS" from sociological, psychological, cultural and political standpoints. I say let Duesberg and Eleni oil wrestle over this thing, whoever wins, wins.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

There is no way to avoid problems within a movement. There is no way to avoid a "leadership" that is not 100% representative. Those of us who are among the "membership" need a forum for free speaking, as we have here at AME, but our role is to represent the totality of the movement and remind the leadership that they have not incorporated all views. We have to accept disagreement while simultaneously voicing the less empowered views.

Animosity among members is the enemy. I do agree with SadunKal that whatever is happening "...will be good for us all in the end."

All that said, I would like to see people in the "leadership" post here on occasion. I would like to see people like Duesberg make a comment or two, the Perth Group has not, as far as I can recall, deigned to comment here, nor has Dr. Rasnick and several others, who, for whatever reason, consider their role to be beyond a mere forum.

On the bright side, the fact that we can point to a leadership, to controversy among major players, indicates that the "dissidents" are maturing as a group. Ultimately, the goal has to be increasing awareness that hiv/aids is a misguided theory.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

It's not that Anthony Brink is not quite right, he's almost totally wrong.

I did not form RA in 2006, it already existed. The board was the same in 2006 when I joined until 2009 when Henry Bauer and Helen Lauer were appointed. I had no influence in membership on the board prior to then, and with the two new additions I participated in a board vote which required a 2/3 majority to add a new member.

I have been questioning the existence of HIV for over a decade. That's the big lie.

Eleni Eleopulos was invited to speak at RA2009 conference and turned it down. Does everyone now know why Anthony Brink could not possibly substitute for Eleni when his grip on the truth is so tenuous and when his rhetoric, based on lies, is so hateful?

What does it say about Anthony Brink's ethics that he would post his hate on Seth Kalichman's blog? What is his real aim? What about HIV+ people whose lives are being destroyed? Are they served by Brink's desire to destroy me, RA and of course the RA 2009 conference?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

A fellow I know, Johan Beaurain just posted this on Facebook:

David, are you saying that Henry Bauer made a mistake when he said that it is thanks to you that RA was revived in 2006. And David do you mean the June 2006 meeting took place in the normal course of RA business as a fully functioning, continuously operating organization? If I understand you right, can you please show me the minutes of the June 2006 meeting. And also can you please show us the minutes of the previous two meetings you are now saying took place before this June 2006 meeting?

Please, and this very important to me, can you also tell us what things you say are Anthony's lies and distortions. Because I do not like people who tell lies and if he is now developing this bad habit then I want to have it out with him before things get out of hand.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

-You mean like Andre Parenzee?

What follows is a post Brink made on a private internet forum which is lightly edited for posting here:

On 7 April this year, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the Perth Group released to an AIDS dissident email list an exchange of email between themselves and David Crowe (his already public) regarding his conduct in the Parenzee case, together with their critical comments.

With the Perth Group’s permission I placed it in the public domain a few weeks ago by posting it on my TIG website:

http://www.tig.org.za/DavidCroweApril-7-2009.pdf

The document details how 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.

Crowe’s dismal response is archived on my site as well:

http://www.tig.org.za/Crowe%20replies%2025%20April.pdf

The Perth Group’s finely detailed indictment of Crowe’s fatal misconduct and colossal stupidity on exhibit in the Parenzee case has never been addressed by the other board members of Rethinking AIDS.

And this leads me to wonder.

Has anybody on the RA board actually bothered to read the document?

Interviewed about AIDS in the South African Sunday Times on 6 February 2000, Mbeki asked: ‘What do you do if ... university people, professors and scientists ... haven’t read ... won’t read? What do you do?’

If the ‘university people, professors and scientists’ on the RA board are not the sort of slobs Mbeki was referring to, and have actually troubled themselves to read the indictment, what steps do they propose taking against Crowe?

I appreciate that my question put to the RA board may be quite misconceived, inasmuch as far from considering Crowe’s misconduct in and after the case so grave as to warrant a summary sacking, the RA Board may instead consider it an exemplary instance of the kind of judgement, initiative and leadership RA is privileged to have at its head.

Anthony Brink

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Ok, this is Crowe's first misrepresentation. The fact-which can be verified by the whois internet directory-is that Rethinking AIDS had most DEFINITELY ceased to exist. I had tried to acquire the rethinkingaids.com domain name a couple times by the time it was re-acquired in 2005 by a representative of the new, current RA group. For a couple years, there was NO active web site at that domain name. It was owned by a domain reseller and there were links to ORTHODOX AIDS sites on the page. I couldn't afford to make an offer to the owner for purchasing the domain name, and he didn't respond to my inquiries about transferring the name to me, despite the fact I already owned rethinkingaids.org.

As one can see below, the rethinkingaids.com domain name wasn't "created" (i.e., acquired) by its current owner (the new RA Group) until early 2005. I was told later by a reliable source that the new RA group made an offer of ~$500 to purchase the rethinkingaids.com domain name back from the then owner of the domain name who acquired that domain name because someone from the OLD RA group FORGOT to renew it!

That's really interesting that an organization would forget to re-register their main domain name and would be forced to pay to re-acquire their old domain name if that organization "already existed" as Crowe claims the current RA group did!!

See:

rethinkingaids.com WHOIS domain registration information from Network Solutions

In case the webmaster decides to do private registration at some point in the future, here is a copy and paste of the whois information current as of the writing of this message:

Domain Name.......... rethinkingaids.com
Creation Date........ 2005-01-24
Registration Date.... 2005-07-29
Expiry Date.......... 2010-01-24
Organisation Name.... Rethink AIDS
Organisation Address. 217 XXXXXXX Road
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. XXXXXXX
Organisation Address. XXXXX
Organisation Address. AL
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... Bryan Owen
Admin Address........ 217 XXXXXXX Road
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ XXXXXXX
Admin Address........ XXXXX
Admin Address........ AL
Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
Admin Email.......... bryandowen@XXXXXXX
Admin Phone.......... +1.XXXXXX5100


As one can also see, it took another six months for the new RA group to REGISTER the domain name. Furthermore, one can see from the internet archive "way back" machine that the domain name was "parked" (meaning inactive) until sometime between late January and early June, 2006:

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Therefore, there was NO active dissident-appropriate site attached to that domain name for a couple YEARS. According to the internet archive linked above, the last time any dissident content was posted on the rethinkingaids.com domain name prior to the undeniable REVIVAL of the RA Group in June, 2006 was sometime around August, 2003. That's quite curious that a purportedly ongoing organization-as Crowe's misleading comment might lead one to believe RA was-would go almost THREE YEARS without any appropriate content on their web site!

Furthermore, again according to the pages archived and linked on the wayback machine, November of 2002 was the last time the homepage at rethinkingaids.com was updated on the old site prior to the domain name cancellation of (apparently) circa August 2003, and the last issue of "Rethinking AIDS"-the newsletter from the old RA group-that was posted to the old RA site was from *July, 2001*!

Lastly, what follows is an e-mail I received from Crowe in May, 2005 regarding-as Crowe himself called it-"the new Rethinking AIDS website that" they were working on at THAT time. He was obviously entrusted with enough power at that early formational stage of the newly revived RA to invite AIDSMythExposed to come to "the new Rethinking AIDS website":

A question....Friday, May 13, 2005 9:38 PM
From: "David Crowe" <David.CroweXXXX>Add sender to Contacts
To: "Rod Knoll" <knollXXXXXX>

Rod;

I've heard that you're not overly enthusiastic with your discussion board being on MSN (personally, anything that has anything to do with Microsoft is something I try to avoid!).

If the technology were available on the new Rethinking AIDS website that we're working on, would you be interested in moving?

Regards,
David Crowe

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

> I have been questioning the existence of HIV for over a decade. That's the big lie.

You always say you have 'been questioning the existence of HIV'.

Everyone knows you have 'been questioning the existence of HIV' for years.

I quote you saying so in my 'tokoloshe letter'.

So where's 'the big lie'?

And if you've 'been questioning the existence of HIV for over a decade, which is to say you're well aware that 'HIV' has never been proved to exist, why did you seek to introduce into the Parenzee case expert evidence that 'HIV' most certainly exists, and that it has been shown to exist by the best method available to biology, namely molecular cloning, if you knew this was rubbish?
Did you think this was incredibly clever?


> Eleni Eleopulos was invited to speak at RA2009 conference and turned it down.

This is so very typical of your disingenuous communication style. You've similarly claimed recently that she refused 'outright'.

She didn't. She thanked Rasnick for inviting her to give a talk on the HIV tests (with this trick trying to keep her off the pivotal 'HIV' isolation problem so as not to expose his and Peter Duesberg's science as wrong); mentioned that she couldn't make it for reasons of cost, distance and timing; and nominated me to deliver a talk on her behalf on the defective evidence for the existence of 'HIV' (as I'd done for her in Russia last year), pertinently commending me as a qualified, able speaker on the topic.

Rasnick evidently rejected her request 'outright', because he didn't even have the courtesy to reply.

When pressed for a decision three weeks later, he claimed, 'People would rather hear the story from her directly.' Which you supported.

But we know this isn't the true reason, because as criticism mounted over the failure of the conference programme to address the central 'HIV' isolation problem, on which the entire HIV-AIDS construct is founded, you got Etienne de Harven to change his topic from a talk about all the retroviruses in the world that he was going to tell the conference we're full of (which Papadopulos-Eleopulos points out is nonsense) to, you guessed, 'Questioning the existence of HIV'.

This has been precisely Papadopulos-Eleopulos's 'story' from the very beginning of the HIV-AIDS era. It is not Etienne de Harven's 'story' at all, and EVERYTHING he says about it is drawn from Papadopulos-Eleopulos's mammoth investigation of the relevant scientific data published, and her historical, original conclusions - with their gargantuan implications for science, medicine, everything.

Apparently when things hotted up for you and Rasnick over your implicit promotion of the 'HIV is just a harmless passenger virus' line at the conference , you abandoned the bogus criterion you advanced to reject me as Papadopulos-Eleopulos's nominated, authorized proxy speaker to deliver an exposition of her science.

Now you think it's fine that 'People [don't] hear the story from her directly' , and instead 'hear the story' indirectly from an unauthorized speaker with whom she has many critically important fundamental scientific disagreements.

So that what the conference attendees will be getting is a mangled version of her original scientific work, and not her 'story' correctly related.


> Does everyone now know why Anthony Brink could not possibly substitute for Eleni when his grip on the truth is so tenuous and when his rhetoric, based on lies, is so hateful?

Readers will no doubt be looking forward to a specific enumeration of these alleged 'lies' for public debate, so that they can decide whether they're really 'lies' or not, or the hard truth.


> What does it say about Anthony Brink's ethics that he would post his hate on Seth Kalichman's blog?

He didn't. Kalichman cross-posted. As he'll do with this exchange again.


> What is his real aim?

It is to expose the businessman's catastrophic incompetence, crass stupidity and contemptible deceiptfulness as the self-appointed 'President' of the international community of AIDS dissident scientists, clinicians, other professionals, and activists.


> What about HIV+ people whose lives are being destroyed?

Let's ask the man rotting in an Australian prison thanks to your disastrously stupid, underhanded, fatal interference in his case.

Readers should note that Crowe still thinks it's clever mixing the American and Australian defence strategies. He still thinks this. So that should a similar case to the Parenzee one come up again, he'll again rush in to 'help' behind the scenes, pressing the defence attorney to adopt Duesberg's 'HIV is harmless' defence, well knowing this is false.


> Are they served by Brink's desire to destroy me, RA and of course the RA 2009 conference?

Just go. And stick to selling your cellphones. And then when we've seen the back of you, we'll look at what might possibly be salvaged from the shambles you've left behind, the inestimable harm you've caused.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Good to see all of this coming to the surface. I wonder though, if it isn't just the tip of the iceberg.

For those who might be squeamish at how 'negative' this all is, well, you haven't seen negative. Anyway, this can rumble just beneath the surface, or it can make it to the light of day where something might be done.

It sure is bringing up a lot of questions in my mind...of egos, selling-out, hidden agendas and outright deception. :)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Let’s be clear about what David Crowe seems to be accused of: Undermining dissidents.

If this is true, he is the greatest double agent ever to have lived. David Crowe has spoken well and clearly representing dissidents many, many times. David is inspiring, articulate, and proven to be able discuss dissident thought in a way that is publically accessible. His work on behalf of the dissidents is extremely hard to surpass. His value to us as a movement is very high.

Unfortunately, David is caught in a spat with the Perth group who are offended by the work of David to present a broader picture of dissident thought in the Parenzee case. If I had been the attorney trying to win a case, I would see benefits in presenting the argument that hiv is harmless, rather than presenting what would sound like a ‘fringe’ theory that hiv doesn’t exist. Was this the wrong call by the attorney, or by David? We can never know because the case may still have been lost if David Crowe had stayed out of it and the Perth Group allowed complete freedom.

Frankly, if this is all you have on David, I say GROW UP. The Perth Group deserves to be heard, but this is a horrible way to do it. Perhaps David did make a mistake, but from what I have seen so far, it was an honest one not meant to throw the trial or something sinister. It is probably true that all this needs to come out and be aired, but don’t act as if David has suddenly become an agent of AIDS Inc. I think he deserves some respect due to many of his contributions.

Folks read the documents on tig's website as linked in Rod’s post above. Read them carefully and decide what if any condemnation ought to be meted out to Mr. Crowe.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Once again-since it is apparently unclear to some of you: due to what was clearly interference from Crowe, the attorney CLEARLY SWITCHED strategies DURING the hearing, so that what was presented by the defense was actually a HYBRID of the TWO defenses.

While one is being encouraged to "read the documents on tig's website as linked in Rod’s post above", one should pay particular attention to the following excerpt from

TIG Position Statement on 'HIV' :

"The Perth Group explained to a prominent criminal lawyer why the mutually destructive ‘HIV-hasn’t-been-shown-to-exist’ and ‘HIV-exists-but-is-harmless’ defences can never be raised in the alternative in criminal proceedings (see http://www.tig.org.za/Legal%20strategy.pdf PDF, 20 KB) – and in reply he agreed.

So do we. And we think only a mental defective would propose a criminal defence strategy along the lines of:

'M’Lord, we will be leading expert evidence to show that notwithstanding all that the vampire experts have written about vampires in their many demonology encyclopaedias in the university libraries, vampires have never been shown to exist. But just to make sure we don’t lose the case, we’ll also be leading the evidence of other experts who contend that vampires most certainly do exist, just as all the vampire experts claim, only they don’t bite.'"

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

The Parenzee case was certainly one of the most horrific pieces of "dissident" history. As crrrraaaazzzzzyyyy as it sounds, they should have gone with the 'it doesn't exist' defense, which -wackily enough- is true!!

But, I'm not on the hate David bandwagon. I don't know enough of what's going on behind the scenes to feel that way about him. These posts have brought up questions though, that agree with views I've had about why some of the major players are involved in this battle.

I get the feeling that some of the big names aren't involved because they care so much about truth, justice and the scientific method, but for their egos and vendettas. Disgusting and vile if true, and it feels more and more like that all the time. I'd love to be wrong about that, but the pushing of a certain agenda makes my stomach tighten.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I have no dog in this fight, and yet I'm thoroughly disgusted by what I'm reading on this thread. This very public display of what amounts to a lot of ego posturing is embarrassing. Mr. Brink, I don't know you from anything beyond what is presented here, and some other published correspondence of yours I've read here and there. Reading this, I'm embarrassed for you. It all just looks like a giant temper tantrum because you, yes you, not Eleni Eleopulous or the Perth Group, were not invited to speak at the RA conference. What you wrote in your letter was misleading.

Technically true, but it leaves out the very pertinent detail of their original, but declined invitation, and makes it sound as if RA had never had any intention of providing a forum for the Perth Group's ideas. Obviously false, which your comment here makes clear.

And then there's this:

Very selective and, again, misleading. The "About RA" page is a brief history of how the organization came to be formed. It makes no claim of being representative of the scope of dissident theory. That would get a little long, and have to include a long list of people and theories beyond the HIV existentialist/non-existentialist views.

No mention from you that Eleni Eleopulous is a founding member of RA, or that her name can be found throughout the site and the associated AIDSWiki.

Those two examples alone indicate to me that it is you who is being disingenuous.

I have to tell you that what turned me off of the mainstream view on HIV is the ego posturing, the need to be right, and make scientists with other viewpoints wrong. That's what you're doing to Prof Duesberg, and I think it's appalling. Not because I'm of the Duesberg "camp" on this. Of Duesberg and the Perth Group, I find the latter's arguments far more compelling. I'm just not sure if it's because their ideas or their communication is better, but I do like the way Eleni Eleopulous communicates. She really breaks things down the layperson. On that score, I have to say that Crowe (and Rasnick) are right. She's who I'd want to hear present these ideas; not you. You've proven yourself thoroughly untrustworthy in what I've read from on this thread alone.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Anthony Brink is fighting in all of South Africa the AIDS fight so you should watch what you say in putting him down. As far as their personal fight it is Perths word against David Crowes and Perth is excluded from RA so I believe that they have a point.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

(sigh) It is YOU who is misleading-and probably very confused. Brink's quote above was about The Perth Group being invited to join the Board of the new RA in 2006. There was NO "original declined invitation" for the Perth Group to be on the board of the new RA. Do you have any evidence that such an invitation WAS extended to the Perth Group by ANYONE from RA? If so, please present it! I'm pretty sure that would be news to the Perth Group. You are clearly confusing the latter invitation to the conference in 2009 with an invitation (which has never existed) for the Perth Group to join the board of the new RA Group...

No one has denied the invitation was extended to Eleni earlier this year to speak at the RA conference. However, if you are unable to question the sincerity of the invitation based upon Brink's detailed account of how it was framed to Eleni and how Eleni's RSVP was addressed (or, more accurately, NOT addressed) by Rasnick, that is YOUR problem.

Again, you are confused. Eleni is HARDLY a "founding member" of the NEW RA Group. It might be best to quote Val Turner of the Perth Group from a recent e-mail he posted to a select group of dissidents (with comments added by me for clarity):

"We wrote: 'Moreover, (the new) RA was never made up of two groups, "the Duesberg group and the Perth group" as suggested by Christopher (...)". This is true. At its inaugural meeting (in June, 2006) the first thing the (NEW RA) Board of Directors did was to get rid of the Perth Group by an unanimous vote. Yet, we are told that you put out press releases in the name of several people including Eleni, and even more incredible, that you are all the co-founders of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. All one has to do to see the enormous difference between the original Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis and your Rethinking AIDS group is read the former’s monthly publication entitled Reappraising AIDS. The publication was about science, both orthodox and dissident. More importantly it was about the different scientific views the dissidents held and which were openly debated. It appears that some of the members of Rethinking AIDS are prepared to sacrifice scientific debate for the sake of unity..."

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Press Release, WHO Says - June 27, 2008

So, let me get this straight. RA is including her in the roster, all over the site, so as to better exclude her from getting a seat at the table?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Again, I ask you...where's your proof that ANYONE from the new RA has EVER offered Eleni or any OTHER member of the Perth Group "a seat at the table"?? Once again, since it's still apparently not clear to some:

THE PERTH GROUP HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD OF THE NEW RA GROUP

Once again, those are the founding members of the ORIGINAL "Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" which was originally formed way back in 1991, I believe. You would have to ask someone from the new RA why they continue to cite Eleni in their press releases, thereby giving everyone the interpretation that she approves the contents of all of RA's press releases when she has made it perfectly and repeatedly clear to the new RA that she most certainly does not.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Well, there you go.

Citing her in press releases makes it appear as though she approves of the contents. Sounds political, and a bit sneaky.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Dear Comrades, just dropped in here for respite care - as it has been a bit depressing on the 'private email list' where much of this debate has been happening - only to find it is on here too.

For those of you who do not know, in the past few days I separately invited Peter Duesberg to respond to some questions on HIV isolation - and he has responded twice now to me and to a wider group.

These were questions I also raised in my book Fear of the Invisible and have long wanted to have answered. They come from the comments he made when in Continuum some years ago he claimed the prize by saying HIV has provably been isolated.

One of my questions was - how can you say HIV has been isolated when the virus in question is said by you not to cause immune deficiency - surely this means it cannot be HIV?

The other was - you claim that the genome of this HIV has uniquely been found in the HIV positive - and is absent in others. (citing again his words) So - why then have scientists from Robert Gallo to Rodriguez reported HIV's genome very hard to detect in AIDS patients?

To my astonishment - Peter's response has been solely to twice ask me why I am making him the focus of attention on this issue - and to suggest that I should instead focus on Gallo, Montaigne and Fauci who are, he says, far more important than he on this issue.

He thus has not so far answered my questions - and I am perplexed. I have pointed out that I have written chapters about Gallo and Montaigne and isolation but this does not mean that I do not have some legitimate questions regarding his own work. I am still hoping for an answer. (I also said I regarded his work as very important - and knew he had suffered in the cause.)

I have also suggested that the Board of RA should consider honoring Eleni by recognizing her request that Anthony Brink speaks in her name.

I have also suggested that they invite Eleni to join their Board - all in the interest of strengthening the movement and going forward.

But I am afraid that this has met with strong resistance. A member of the Board has written to say, regarding my first request, I have no rights to demand things of the RA board - which of course I have not. I was merely pleading for an act of reconciliation.
Dave Rasnick told Celia that they could not accept Eleni's request to have Anthony Brink represent her at the conference as Anthony was not sufficiently an expert to speak at the conference .

I think it significant that this happened prior to Anthony's satirical attack on RA. His work on antiretrovirals is called absolutely outstanding and first rate by Peter Duesberg. He is a fountain of knowledge on South Africa, where he is outstanding in the fight for AIDS victims - and he has also won the trust and respect of the Perth Group- quite an honor considering their high scientific standards.

Anthony also spoke for Eleni at the conference in Russia for much the same reason.... Eleni does not travel that much. His speech was well received by all reports.

He is also now fuming, and this is highly uncomfortable, particularly for David Crowe - but maybe this should be put into its context.

Eleni in her article asks why the Perth group has not been invited onto the RA board. I do not know the history - but surely her wish to be on it should now be welcomed?

with every good wish

Janine Roberts :)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

PS why am i still a "junior member"!!! How many times must I post?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

It gives neither the interpretation nor the impression, that she approves of the content of the press releases. It gives the impression that she is one of a group of people "rethinking" AIDS. I don't think there is the vaguest hint of any consensus among those various signatories about anything other than the need to reassess the premature consensus of the AIDS establishment.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

What's at issue?

Seems there's a real lack of integrity at RA.

I'm very very rapidly losing repsect for any of those who continue to promote the HIV is undoubtedly real and has been successfully isolated, but it's utterly harmless ideology. It just smacks so heavily of the mainstream AIDS orthodoxy, as it insults our collective intelligence AND they become defensive when you point out the holes in their theory/logic. I mean...wow, it's like they've become a mirror to the AIDS orthodoxy with their pet theory and flippant answers to real questions. How are they liking themselves? Seriously, losing respect hard and fast here. What the hell IS their agenda?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

First, once again, since it is STILL NOT CLEAR TO YOU: Eleni is NEITHER a "founder" NOR a "key member" of the CURRENT RA Group. Many who are listed with Eleni in those press releases as "founders" and "key members" of the new RA Group are likewise NOT, except that many of the others who are former members of the OLD RA Group DO still support Duesberg. And, when the press releases from the new RA invariably tout the Duesberg line, how can one claim there is no apparent "consensus" in the new RA??

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

For those who may not know, the isolation questions first put forth by the old Continuum and virusmyth gang (see: HIV & AIDS - VirusMyth AIDS WebSite - Missing Virus Award ) were not directed at Duesberg. However, as Janine points out, it was HE who decided to step up and claim the award for the missing virus! A good question to ask Duesberg the next time he says "go ask Gallo" or "go ask Montagnier" is "Why on earth did you step forward, then, to claim the "missing virus" award posted by 'Continuum'"?

P.S: Congratulations Janine! You are now a "Senior Member"!

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I should say that I am still hoping that there can be some reconciliation. Liam and Andy Maniotis and Celia are all pouring oil on the water.... Ultimately, we all hate the AIDs industry and all its works..

May I share this posting I just made elsewhere...

Thank you Celia - and thank you too Liam and Andy

Before we move on, I also hope there are real actions now to close the divide in this community between some of its finest warriors.. I understand when such people rant ... not that I agree ... I have been personally really pissed off at some comments - but I did not understand fully what was going on...

This HIV crime statistic is horrible... thank you for pointing it out, Celia. Maybe I will move to Albania, the land of the free.

but then again - just had a wonderful reception in England from an large meeting with ordinary folk mixed with scientists and nutritionists - and before that in Greece in large meetings with Maria, Andy, myself and Juliane on the panel Lots of ordinary folk listening and calling up their friends to ask them to come too..and medical doctors present too...

there is building a huge head of steam on vaccination issues. i get scores of emails a day from angry parents... I also talk to them about the Incarnation home drug trials, about the HIV positive mothers who flee abroad to avoid poisons being given to their children... and they understand..

the 'HIV dissident ' movement must not be a ghetto.... must not be trapped in a claustrophobic world. There is sunshine and energy outside ... among others who are questioning the very reality of the invislble viral zombies - of the dreaded legions of cunning evil demons that haunt bathrooms and descend gleefully on innocent helpless cells (despite being a million times smaller and dead) and force them to have death-dealing children -that spreads fear, that breeds profit.. that now appears in glorious alien colour in animations behind TV newreaders.

There are now tens of thousands battling this - all potential allies if we fight alongside them when we can.

Janine..

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

RA, for all practical purposes is the "official" voice of AIDS dissent (or 'rethinking', if you will). Otherwise, why would any of us give a crap about what they say or do...whether Eleni or Brink get to speak or be on the board, or what their agenda-slash-dogma is?

So, where to go?

Ask them politely to let Eleni/Perth Group in their ranks? What will that do, if anything?

Or, like Liam suggests at RTB, ask for a debate? Let the best alternate theory of AIDS win?

Something tells me they won't be keen on that idea, and rather than open up, they'll be closing ranks...just like...you guessed it, the mainstream AIDS orthodoxy.

Like I said on an earlier post, I'm much more interested in other aspects of "AIDS" besides the "science". But, having RA as the "official" voice of AIDS dissidence is very disconcerting, given their current ideology.

Perhaps a new group needs to form, one with a better grip on logic and science? One that won't insult our intelligence?:)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Hey, just seen I have been promoted. Now I can apply for my senior citizen soup allowance....

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Don't condescend to me. Tell you what. You reference where she has explicitly asked to be removed from that roster, and I'll consider the premise that they are somehow exploiting her name. Until that time, I will continue to assume that they are simply listing people who were original rethinkers, because that is how it reads to me. See, I'm not privy to all the machinations and infighting that has suddenly exploded on this site. It is my sincere hope that I never am. It's positively stomach turning.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Janine,

are you suggesting we just hold hands and sing Kumbaya? Sure, why not. Let's not discuss problems. We can do like I was raised to do in Minnesota...bury issues. Minnesotans are good at keeping things buried deep down inside.

So, RA says HIV exists. Let's all go with that.

I'm game.

No problems.

It's about going after Gallo now, isn't it?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I don't mean to be flippant, but this is nothing.

You probably haven't seen the raging email battles amongst the big names, with words exchanged that will make you positively cringe.

I'm not saying it's ok, but it happens a LOT. This one is extremely tame so far.:)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

You're right. FINALLY you get it! You are NOT "privy to all the machinations and infighting", but, since you hope you never are, there is no point in revealing to you what HAS INDEED transpired in semi-private e-mail lists. Yet you are still confused about something. Eleni hasn't requested that she be "removed from that roster". She IS still a founding member of the ORIGINAL Group For Scientific Reappraisal, but, once again and at the risk of being accused of even more condesecension, the current RA Group is NOTHING LIKE THE OLD RA GROUP!!

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Can you give me a link to where the Perth Group says HIV does not exist? I must have missed it in my reading. Everything I've read from them says that it's existence has not been proven. That there are no convincing photographs, or proper isolation. Not proven/demonstrated is a very different thing from non-existent. You can't prove a negative. This is one reason I've held such respect for the Perth Group; because they talk like actual scientists. If they've changed their tune and they're now claiming to have proved the non-existence of HIV, I may have to amend my view.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

No way. .I was saying the opposite...

"Before we move on, I also hope there are real actions now to close the divide in this community between some of its finest warriors"

Action not words... before we move on.

My practical work is done far from the RA front. Last thing I did was to publish Maria's book "Goodbye AIDS: did it really exist" in April - do you know it - and now publishing a nurse with a PhD who also questions HIV....but this one on vaccination . It will be called "Jabs Jenner and Juggernauts" -out this summer... and there are other books of my own and others coming.

And my next meeting is with West London homeopaths who question HIV...

Janine

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I'm not speaking on behalf of Perth.

And, unfortunately, I pulled a little shorthand there and should have said RA says HIV exists and has been properly isolated. Relax.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Timewalker you are right on this - but please do note that the Perth Group also say that AIDS is not caused by a virus. If not, in the current context, HIV as the cause of AIDS does not exist.
Janine

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Yes. Perth are extremely careful with the words they choose to use.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Precisely. It seems to me that this is the one thing that rethinkers across the board have in common; that the HIV=AIDS model accepted without question by the establishment is wrong. (Personally, I am more circumspect than that, and continue to say that the link has not been proven to my satisfaction.) This dissing of theories and hard, acrimonious division into camps, amongst rethinkers is nauseating to me. Intolerance of dissent and cries of "you're wrong" no "you're wrong" is the thing that utterly turned me off of the mainstream view, because to me that's an indication that they're not doing science anymore. They're doing politics and pushing for consensus, which has no place in science. Reasonable people can disagree. Funded research by all these rethinkers is what needs to happen. Not idiotic turf wars and acrimony.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

timewalker, what's happening sholdn't be confused with "intolerance of dissent". Please see my earlier post #19 on that.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

One other point: I was listening to these interviews the other evening on Brian's recommendation. Page2Pantry 7/17 and 7/24. Both are interviews with David Rasnick, and it sure sounds to me -- and I am admittedly a total neophyte -- like Rasnick is saying that HIV only exists as a lab artifact. So I'm a little confused by the assertion that he falls neatly into the Duesberg says it's been isolated and therefore it's been isolated camp. I don't think the divisions among rethinkers are nearly as binary as this thread suggests, and I hope it never becomes such.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

It is hard for me to intervene in this debate in english. Thus, I do it in french. I hope someone can translate.

J'ai découvert ce débat concernant la cause du sida en 2000, à la suite des interventions du président Mbeki.
J'ai ensuite lu et relu les documents publiés par Virusmyth, Theperthgroup, Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick, Etienne de Harven, Kary Mullis, Anthony Brink et plus récemment Henry Bauer, Janine Roberts, et j'en oublie.

David Crowe a semble-t-il voulu coordonner toutes ces idées, et il est à remarquer qu'il a publié les interventions de toutes les personnes citées plus haut, et en particulier celles d'Eleni Papadopoulos et de Valendar Turner.

Il a même publié mes deux contributions et je l'en remercie. Il m'a également demandé de participer à la signature du document demandant la réévaluation des travaux de Gallo, et m'a invité à la conférence d'Oakland. J'enverrai un mail à David Rasnick, mais je profite de ce post pour indiquer que je ne pourrais venir, car mon travail, mes enfants (9) et la distance ne me le permettent pas.

Je remarque deux choses.

Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick et Klaus Koehnlein ont essayé de montrer que l'épidémiologie du sida montrait plutôt une correlation avec un empoisonnement chimique. Mais il manque un volet à leur démonstration, à savoir le lien biochimique entre cet empoisonnement et le sida. Et surtout le lien entre cet empoisonnement et les marqueurs dits du HIV.

Le groupe de Perth nie l'isolation du HIV, et ceci parce qu'ils indiquent que les images proposées ne proviennent pas de la bande de gradient de densité, mais de la "soupe" initiale. En cela ils n'ont pas tort. Mais je suis étonné qu'aucun de leurs contradicteurs - Chris Noble, Nick Bennet, Flegg et bien d'autres - n'aient cité le Southern Blot effectué par Montagnier, qui montre qu'il s'agit-là d'une nouvelle entité - encore aurait-il fallu que Montagnier précise l'origine de l'ADN utilisé pour l'hybridation. A-t-il utilisé le junk DNA humain par exemple?

Il y a donc trois visions des choses (Duesberg, Perth et orthodoxe), mais, en toute rigueur, il ne doit y avoir qu'une réalité. Il faudrait donc trouver un modèle qui rejoigne chacun des protagonistes dans sa propre expérience.

Et dans ce domaine, force est de constater que le groupe de Perth a été le premier à parler du "stress oxydatif" comme cause du sida, hypothèse d'ailleurs reprise à demi-mot par Luc Montagnier.

Encore faut-il creuser et savoir quel est ce stress et comment il intervient pour détruire les cellules immunitaires et quel est son rapport avec le HIV?

Je dois dire que j'ai été personnellement déçu par une personne, de laquelle je me sentais proche, car elle a fait les mêmes études que moi. Il s'agit de Henri Bauer, qui supprime systématiquement tous les messages que j'apporte à son forum, sans doute parce que je défends cette notion de stress oxydatif chère au groupe de Perth.

On me reproche très certainement aussi de rechercher dans les publications mainstream de quoi alimenter ma réflexion. Mais il me semble que la détermination de la réalité de la cause et du mécanisme de formation du Sida dépend d'abord de la confrontation de toutes les données expérimentales, en faisant mentalement abstraction des prémisses qui figurent dans ces documents, à savoir la responsabilité unique du HIV dans le Sida.

Je me suis donc forgé une idée personnelle, que j'ai exposée dans ce billet publié par David Crowe, et qui a été reprise par Janine Roberts dans son livre. Cette idée souffre cependant d'un défaut : la cellule est-elle capable de créer un RNA ne figurant pas dans le génome (hors junk-DNA) pour des besoins tels que l'apoptose?
J'aurais aimé voir une telle critique (ou d'autres), mais il est vrai que je ne représente que moi-même et que je ne vois pas de quel droit je proposerais de telles idées. Mais elles ont semblé intéresser Michael Geiger...
J'ai beaucoup aimé que David Rasnick écrive sur le blog de Clark Baker : "HIV is a only a tentacle of the monster"

Ces idées sont pour moi désormais raccrochées par du concret à l'hypothèse du stress oxydatif, ou plutôt du stress "nitrosatif".

Je ne vais pas développer ici, mais je dois dire que ces réflexions ont voulu être un moyen de rapprocher les trois hypothèses précitées. Mais là encore, je p... certainement plus haut que mon c.. (french expression).

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I can't speak french, but I used Firefox Ubiquity's translator to get the below results. Which is pretty understandable despite numerous obvious flaws, but it could use some improvement because it is not perfectly clear at times:

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

All I have to say is that this whole thing is a turn off. It may well be the case that the RA group is purposefully avoiding the Perth Group's evidence on existence. Such a stand ought to be addressed. However, if they will not address it, then I ask, is destroying RA the best alternative?

Do you, Rod, Anthony, Dan, Janine, want to see David Crowe step down and out from the RA? Will we never hear his smooth and fine voice from the computer again?

Do you, Rod, Anthony, Dan, Janine, want to see Peter Duesberg become martyr of the dissidents, held up by the mainstream as the dissident rejected in favor of "extremists." Let's face it, by the mainstream thought, stepping from Duesberg to Perth is a step toward more fringe ideas, and unfortunately less credentialed representatives.

Do you want the RA to become paralyzed by reorganization that may take 1, 2, 3 years to recover from? Is Anthony going to be the new King of Dissidents? Is he going to be as available for Radio shows in NYC, LA, or St. Louis as has been David? Will Val and Elleni avail themselves to appearances on as many shows as Duesberg and Rasnik? Or will we end up with a new silence on the radio waves--reversing what has been a glorious period of exposure for dissidents?

Will the Perth Groups view ascend to tyrannical certainty here and throughout the dissident movement. Will it become forbidden to suggest that aids is not a sexual disease?

Many dissidents are able to speak well and good and represent dissident views without ever even speculating on existence. I seldom have to mention whether I think hiv exists or if I simply think it hasn't been adequately proven to exist in people or some such minor detail.

What are your demands? If the Perth Group is raised to the level of board members, will Duesberg and Rasnik be called to task, or removed for disagreement with them? Will David be punished?

Weigh the costs of what has been set in motion here. Do you want to oust David Crowe, and reject his work for the cause? Do you want to destroy the RA? Do you want to see those of us who are already struggling to find a greater voice in this battle to be shoved aside for your cause. Do you want to dethrone all those who are not fans of the Perth Group because you believe they are right?

People say that it is forced consensus that turns them off about the mainstream. Me too, but unnecessary ego battles that throw ad homenums are just as bad. These are uncivil actions. Even if RA has somehow warranted such vindictive as what has been hurled at them now, How is your present course of action designed to do anything but destroy?

Again, I tend to agree that the Perth group is right about existence. But I do not agree that they are right about everything else. This tirade proves that neither they, nor Anthony Brink, are the ones to lead the politics, business, and image of the most visible Rethinking group.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Important points.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

"Expansive"

let's make this easy.

Please go to the original post on this thread and click on the link. Oh, yes, and read the post at RTB.

Liam's done a good job of expressing concerns, and without the backbiting we're experiencing on this thread.:)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Well said, Expansive Mind.

It's not just that the ego battles are just as bad. It's that this particular ego battle seems to be all about forcing a consensus. I've read too much in this thread, and it Liam Scheff's post, about deciding who is right and who is wrong, among dissidents. Thoroughly counterproductive, and very bad science. The need to be "right" is the enemy of scientific progress.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Hmm. From what I've read of Liam's post, it's not about forcing a consensus. It's about debating the merits of the Duesbergian AIDS ideology vs. HIV not being one defined particle and AIDS being multifactorial. I don't see how that's 'forcing a consensus'. I don't see how that could ever happen anyway (consensus), as getting "dissidents" to agree on anything is liking herding cats, as we can all see.

While you're waiting for 'scientific progress' (and probably a consensus that you wouldn't admit to right now), action needs to be taken (or not, it's all good dood). While "dissidents" on this forum continue the navel-gazing tradition as well as the time-honored thumb-twiddling in endless discussions about what HIV does or doesn't do, or what T-cells are up to this week (I say just get the magazine T-Cells Weekly), real things are still happening in the real world, like at ICC. So, maybe you're content to spend your days trying to figure it out (I find it's quite simple, really), others are more active, and being active requires at least semi-solid footing.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Come now. It's not about a debate. He's already drawn his conclusions.

While I'm more inclined to the Perth Group's work, myself, as someone who is just trying to learn about dissident theories, I'm glad I have access to both, in fact many, perspectives. I don't like the idea of ANY theory or hypothesis on what I think is very unresolved science, being closed down or determined "wrong," or "NOT TRUE." I think that's how we got into this mess, in the first place. I think that monomania in the research of AIDS may have cost one of my dearest friends his life. Let's leave the arrogance and exclusionary tactics to Robert Gallo.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Dan,

I put a response on liam's post.

I am glad you are out there doing something. Obviously you take great pride in that. I appreciate much of what you had to say on your blog before it became private. I'm sorry you see most dissidents as thumb-twiddlers. I would love to see you help these thumb-twiddlers with concrete advice on how to go to the next level, but I don't see how it helps to condescend and name-call here.

Several members here are doing work in their own areas and several have websites, write to newspapers and so on. But I may be missing your point as to what folks ought to be doing.

Anyway that is a topic for another thread, which, hopefully, you might start.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

"Timewalker",

I really think you're not understanding what I'm saying in my post. That's ok. :)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Somebody was actually reading that?:o It's not private, really. It's just out of commission for the moment. I'd like to do something else along similar lines.


Sorry for the name-calling. No, I know it's not productive. At some point, though, you've got to decide something. Because, at every moment in life, you're operating with a set of beliefs. Do you believe HIV causes AIDS? Do you NOT believe HIV causes AIDS? Do you believe HIV causes AIDS sometimes. or just a little? What do you believe? Until you have some solid ground to stand on, I guess there isn't any going to the next level (whatever that may entail).

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Please know that I am not trying to belabor this, or fight with you. But, just to be clear about what I mean, I disagree with the above. Science is not about belief. It's not even about knowing the answer. Any really good scientist will tell you that all you know is the conclusions of the most recent research, and that later research may make those conclusions moot. Belief and certainty about science is called scientism. I paraphrase, from memory, Jad Adams from AIDS: The HIV Myth:

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

"Timewalker",

I'm not talking about science. I'm talking about life....which is bigger than science.

The funny thing about science is that what it "knows" at one point, can drastically change, even do a '180'. So, what it "knew" before is suddenly completely wrong.

I've got a question for you.

At any point in your life, did you believe HIV causes AIDS?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

DaninSeattle, though your question wasn't put to me, I'd like to give my two cents.

I long believed that HIV caused AIDS and was very surprised when a friend told me that there was this scientist who questioned this. But that information lay there for years. When I went to India in 1998 for 4 months, some Frenchman I met in Goa told me about how the pharmaceutical and chemical companies used the same labs and that many of the syndromes caused by the chemicals were attributed to something else and pharmaceuticals developed accordingly.

During the same trip, but after being told of this, I remember getting my head shaved by a sidewalk barber with a straight blade, then worrying like hell that I might have needlessly exposed myself to some mortally dangerous bug like HIV. Also at that time, Richard Gere was visiting India, pushing the orthodox agenda. This pissed me off, as I felt there were more pressing concerns in India and that HIV was a celebrity cause célèbre and was getting disproportionate attention.

On my return to Canada, I assembled my diaries and travel notes into a book. When doing so, I saw my commitment to explore the Frenchman's allegations. The first thing I read was a 47-page document by Duesberg. It was fascinating and my questions were similar to those that would be asked by an acolyte of the orthodoxy. However, these questions were to seek understanding rather than to try to "refute" Duesberg's work. Questions like, "but what about the Red Cross tainted blood?"; "what about the marked improvement in survival?"; "what about contagion?"; "what about hemophiliacs?" - it took time, because each answer would hit against a couple of decades of accumulated "knowledge" which did, however, slowly give way.

Duesberg performed a huge service this way and his work eased my way to the PG's. I always had trouble with his "passenger virus" bit, though. Why would this passenger virus correlate so strongly with AIDS? I hope to put this question directly to him this fall.

But then came the Perth Group, and I would say that I don't have any major issues with their work. As far as I can tell, it's very thorough and professional. It's a consistent theory that I can defend, except that it's probably far too extreme for most any neophyte - as when I talk about isolation, an incisive listener will ask, well then, does that apply to any virus? And I have to say yes. This is quite a leap for anyone not acquainted with the theory.

Throughout this adventure, I have corresponded with Janine, Davids Crowe & Rasnick, Christine, Kim Bannon, Liam and many others I greatly admire. Whether or not any of these are at loggerheads with each other, they have been a huge help to my own understanding. I certainly have no animosity toward the Duesbergians even though I lean toward the Perth Group. The similarities between the two are far more important than the differences.

The key difference would be acknowledgment of the existence of HIV. However, if HIV does not cause AIDS, then it's not HIV. I would guess that Duesberg's acknowledgment of HIV means that he acknowledges that HIV refers to virus that has been isolated but that has been falsely pegged as causing AIDS. This, however, is the difference that would cause so much trouble in the courtroom.

It could be a matter of how it's presented. If both sides present a common front in that AIDS is not caused by a virus, and that therefore an aids-causing HIV does not exist by definition, this might be less confusing to a jury. This would require far more cooperation, however, than would seem possible with the infighting we see in this thread.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Sure. I felt no reason to doubt that Gallo's announcement was in earnest. I think I felt what many young, sexually active people felt: relief that there was a breakthrough and that we could expect a vaccine to fix it. Then I happened on the Adams book and was horrified at what it said about Gallo's integrity and about how the science was being done. I think I question a lot of things in medical science more than I used to, after reading that book. Not just AIDS theory. But, I don't consider myself decided on any of it. The only thing I feel absolutely clear about is that the science around this has become very corrupted and that I can't trust anything that comes from big pharma funded medical journals. I am horrified that the establishment can claim such certainty about the cause of something when they can't even say how it's causing it. Certitude and intolerance of dissent make me nervous. That's why I hated having Bush as President, and that's why I don't feel I can trust the NIH or CDC, at this point. Echo chambers are bad. The temptation to be in them must be resisted at all costs.

Life can change that fast, too. The only constant is change. And science is simply a method of observing those changes. It's not separate from life. It's just a codified method for asking questions. I'm not a scientist. I'm just a person who is no longer fooled by illusions of certainty.

I'll say one other thing. You are welcome to make decisions about your beliefs about the science. You are welcome to hold opinions. Where I get uncomfortable is where I see movement towards making those decisions for other people about what should or shouldn't the accepted viewpoint and what theories and what thinkers, or rethinkers, should be jettisoned, because they're inconvenient.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

"Even the wisest of doctors are relying on scientific truths the errors of which wil be recognized with a few years time"
- Marcel Proust over 1 century ago -

There is something surreal in these discussions. Is it not true that everything discussed is actually a deconstruction of theories which are falsely labeled science.? The arguements all center around why claims are not true. Without exception illusions are presented and each and everyone is scientifically exposed to be false.

A virus which exists- - exposed / false
A test to determine postive status - exposed / false
Viral loads which are not - exposed / false
T cell which mean... - exposed / false
Medicines for healing - exposed / false
( then thousands others) - exposed / false

Where is the science in the institution of medical science to justify treating any of it as Science. ? What science conventions and relations are sustaining this debacle ?

Conventional medical theoy - exposed l false

If the real science in the debate is only the deconstructionists exposing the junk science, and the othrodoxy is always non scientific and wrong, then the debate can't continue PRETENDING that there is such a thing as a scientific debate between 2 sides. One side is and always has been a fake. ( 50 years and hundreds of billions of dollars has proved zero cures in the reseach rackets of fake science )

The stragetic dissident blunder of treating junk science as if it is really science is a hopless form of ENABLING and very counterproductive to dissident goals. It accepts the false premise of a fake science as a field of true knowledge and therefore promotes, by omission, the exploitive social conditions of ruthless marketplace politics and economic racketering, that are the real and only factors sustaining the lie.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

So you believed HIV causes AIDS simply on Gallo's word?

And you used your feelings to decide that Gallo's word was correct?

This doesn't sound scientific at all.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

John,

thanks for your considerate post.

It's easy for things to go awry here as the issues are many and complex.

For those who've been involved for a number of years, there have been issues simmering, unresolved for a long time. These are much less issues of science than they are of politics. And I think that's where a lot of the confusion may stem from, is that people who haven't been in email discussions for years don't know the politics behind the scenes, and unfortunately, many of the politics have been extremely nasty. I've been told to 'get in line' on more than one occasion, i.e. follow a certain agenda (I won't say whose agenda that is).

I'm sincerely sorry for newcomers that will find this infighting upsetting. And I really don't want to participate in any more of it at the moment (save some for later! Just kidding).

Without going into hairy, behind-the-scenes detail on everything, it's very difficult for people to know why what's being said is being said. And I'll leave it at that. I think this latest bout of unpleasantness has run it's course, thankfully.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I just told you I'm not a scientist, and at the time I was a kid. I had no idea what I was looking at. I would be the first to admit that I was young and foolish. But, it does give me, I think, some insight into just why Gallo's gamble paid off. Just why his press conference was accepted uncritically by so many people, despite the fact that the papers hadn't even been published, yet. We had all been rendered terrified that this new scourge would continue ripping its way through the the gay community, and moving inexorably into the heterosexual community. We were told it was a plague and it was spreading. There's nothing new about this tactic of creating and exploiting fear in the populace. Iraq war. Ever hear of it? I'm just glad I learned these lessons young and began to read things much more critically. I just told you that Jad Adams book was a wake up call for me, on many levels. So you can continue to play gotcha, or read what I've already written and save me the trouble of repeating and explaining myself.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

hi to all,

this is totally impossible logistically. While you have been discussing this here, i have been engaged in a frustrating but amiable dialogue with Peter Duesberg by email because I was trying to resolve an major issue, hoping perhaps foolishly that i could help bridge a gulf - and am also now in a friendly email exchange with Etienne de Harven, past RA president, that has done much to illuminate for me a long scientific rivalry within this community, and with Liam and with Celia and with Anthony...all friendly believe it or not !!!! i am trying to resolve things... and so are many of us.

I cannot keep everyone up with events. my emails here have been in the nature of dispatches! There have been serious errors in my view, some scientific, but people do also fly off - some surprisingly... i have not and no, I do not want to destroy anyone . People who fight long and hard battles, who put their careers in jeopardy in order to fight this AIDS monster , who feel , sometimes with justification, that they are not properly recognized, who need support - can also get intensely frustrated when the urgency of their fight for the sick or misrepresented seems ignored.

Last year I was supported by the entire board of RA when I was preparing the letter to Science calling for the withdrawal of Gallo's '84 papers - that support was needed because of another fierce battle which caught me totally unawares... It is hard dealing sometimes with fiercely independent stubborn people... not that i am not one myself.

Science is about the pursuit of the truth - and it is multi-facetted when it has to do with humans. As i get older, I get more tolerant in this hunt. You should have met me 20 years ago!

janine

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...gaidslogo2.jpg

For those still interested in this long drawn out saga, I, Brian Carter, invite you to go HERE.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I've got the feeling that long-standing issues (political and scientific) are being pushed below the surface again.

Glad I don't look up to any of these people as authorities, otherwise my frustration level would double.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Now that David Crowe has surprisingly launched a public attack on myself and others, distorting what I wrote and then shooting it down, on a well used website, this has gone much too far.
He also publicly attacks Val Turner and Anthony Brink . Anthony certainly left himself open to this and will expect it. But I am attacked for suggesting that the perth group should be represented in RA and at the conference - and for suggesting that major faults in virus isolation in virology should be a topic at the conference - but you would not know this from his 'summary'. he effectively puts words into my mouth - and slurs my reputation..

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Carter, in my view this is a libelous attack on myself. I want it taken down promptly.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

woops - i did not mean an attack on me in this forum..... It is David Crowe's very serious misrepresentation. I was clearly wrong in my earlier optimistic email. David had vanished from the email list where we had been discussing things - saying to me he wanted to go private.. instead he was going public.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Of course I have missed a great deal of what has gone on here, as I am not as plugged in to RA as many are. However, I have not seen Janine's comments on any forums. Are her words on the ARAS site from a public forum or private emails?

Also, though I stand by RA as a needed and effective publicity and education organization, I sincerely hope that they too are careful of what they set into motion. We do not need more alienation, but less.

I understand rebutting Anthony Brinks, who clearly went far out of his way to attack David Crowe personally and in public. I do not, however, understand why Janine has also been named. I am sure I have missed something here.

Anyway all, good night, and play nice!!!

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

This thread contains many issues. For me, everything "boils down" to two main questions: what is "science" and when can the scientific method be abandoned (if ever)?

I needed to teach my students "modern science," as opposed to scientific inquiry of the ancient Greeks, for example. I pointed out to them that experimentation was the key to modern science, and that in order to ensure that the experiments weren't misleading or a waste of time, one needed to control for all potentially causative factors, because basically science is an attempt to determine cause and effect. Essentially, "scientists" have the resources and knowledge (in theory) to decide which experiments are worth doing (or even possible), and they usually are granted the authority to interpret the experimental data for the rest of us (if there are sociological implications).

With "HIV/AIDS," this method was put aside because it was thought an emergency situation was at hand. However, biology and medicine are largely based upon "models" and speculation. Duesberg's focus on "Koch's Postulates" is interesting in this context, but these postulates are a way to circumvent the scientific method, which requires no "postulates" or any other theoretical construct for some sort of "support." There are so many examples of "science gone wrong" I've come across over the last several years that I won't even both to list them here (and this is just for biomedical and nutritional issues), though I have at other times on this newsgroup. Because I've seen so many "mistakes," my opinion is that only the most dire circumstances should call for putting the scientific method aside (temporarily), but this requires good judgment, a lot of clinical experience, a lack of bias, etc., and having enough people around who have such qualities may be the exception rather than the rule.

As I used to tell students about historical change, one can have great ideas about making society a better place - that's "easy." The problem is getting from "point A to point B." Something often "goes wrong" and things can turn out worse than before, which one could argue for Russia, for instance (at least between 1917 and 1989). So, science is essentially "child's play," but something often "goes wrong" and terrible "mistakes" are made. Dissidents fighting with each other could be "good" or "bad;" only time will tell, but nobody knows what time that will be. This is why I just make my points and "move on." One thing I've learned that I've found to be very important is that if I'm not receptive to learning something new, for whatever reason, I'm not going to be able to learn it. A study of history suggests that there are always "advanced thinkers" but most people need time to "digest things," which usually frustrates the advanced thinkers

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Janine, I have read and reread David's responses. I fail to see any direct personal public attack. I merely see it as matter of fact information. In my opinion he could have left everybody's name off and it would be just as useful.

What I am doing by referencing it here, is allowing rebuttal to the information and statements drawn up on the beginning posts to this thread. You seem to have been drawn in unexpectedly. From what I understand David will retract or alter information on the RA segment. Asking him directly will be your best route.

Until then you're welcome to advance your proclamations here.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Brian,

David is citing small parts of my emails sent to a small private email list. Look at the general comment he makes to justify this webpage and how he has edited my comments out of their context.

Claus, the first on that list to look at his webpage (as the US is still asleep) replied on that list "you are basically right in your assessment of the nature of the contents. and"this is ill-conceived and a sad misuse of his website."

It is not the first time David and I have clashed. It happened also over the letter to Science where I had to fight very hard to get it out as professionally as possible - luckily on that occasion my proposal was given the full support of his Board with Christine's help but it was a close run thing.

The problem is - there are a lot of fiery determined warriors out there! I understand where David is coming from - but sometimes this small melting pot of scientific rebels puts out things it should not.

But - I also do not want to over react. Sorry if I was. It is not my ego that is important. As Andy Maniotis has just said. focus on what we must do to support AIDS industry victims...

Janine

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

And follow RA's lead.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Originally Posted by janineroberts

As Andy Maniotis has just said. focus on what we must do to support AIDS industry victims...

Janine
I'm assuming you meant this sarcastically, Dan? Certainly RA's efforts "to support AIDS industry victim" Andre Parenzee weren't too successful...

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I was being sardonic. A close kin to sarcasm.:)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

"What we must do to support AIDS industry victims" might perhaps be supporting each other first, to be able to be more open and honest about whatever is going on... so that we can cooperate more efficiently.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I don’t know about you guys, but no organization, nor employer, nor group that I participated in has been able to incorporate all the issues desired by its constituents. I understand that isolation is a big issue, and it is important, and at some point, it will rise to the top. We all have gotten a nice big dose of RA’s apparently intense need, if not to suppress the issue, then to marginalize the topic.

However, there are far better ways of dealing with this fact than attacks and division. Frankly, I do think RA could handle this issue better even if they simply do not want to open this can of worms. On the other side though, Who has done a better job of getting people air time? Who else is working as strongly and ceaselessly to present a public face for the rethinkers?

The reason the isolationists (cute, huh) are wanting the RA to represent them is because RA apparently acts obstructionist and refuses to give the isolationists the stage on their own terms and because they do not have their own group. If the isolationists create their own group, (and why not?), then there can be two rethinker groups, each with their bodies of support. Sorry, but that is a better option, a more constructive option than animosity and bitterness. There is always a more constructive way.

Still, it is damn hard to create a group like RA. Any group like RA is going to have it’s problems and limitations, and it will have little choice but to ride as far as it can with those constraints. RA may have a specific agenda, or simply an “open secret” that isolation should not get a lot of press. If this is the case, I suspect it is a political reason rather than strictly a personal one. Perhaps it is important to RA to protect Duesberg’s reputation as a world-class scientist because that helps others take the cause of rethinking more seriously. That is a valid reason! Political considerations are vital.

A group formed around the isolationists, will also have it’s issues. Do you honestly think there wouldn’t be calls to “get in line” from Brinks or the Perth Groups? Seriously.

David Crowe is not perfect. None of us are either. We can throw rocks at him, but he has and continues to do more than most for the cause. He performs a great role, and he fucks up. It’s the nature of the beast. However, who else could do as much as he does? I mean, really, once we all realize we can’t change the course of RA, and who isn’t convinced now?, then we have to look either to resigning to the state of things as they are, which, frankly are better than they ever have been for Rethinkers, or break off and do “your own thing.”

Rethinking is more organized, more public, more successful than it has ever been before, and I for one am happy to see it.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Here's my prediction.

This little brouhaha is going away. It will be buried under the surface.

Apologies will occur, and some of those who questioned and criticized RA will capitulate so they can have a crumb at the table as RA is the "official" voice of rethinking-slash-dissent.

Another group should form instead, though.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Janine, I believe I have quoted you accurately. I don't believe I have disparaged you. If I have made any errors in my quoting, please identify them. If you would like to clarify that you didn't mean what you said, I'd be happy to remove any sections that were based on words that you wrote but didn't really mean.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

At least on this point I'm sure there was a misinterpretation:

I believe that she suggested voting for a debate -which should've ideally occurred without any pressure- and not for acceptance of any particular theory.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Absolutely,thank you - yes I called for a vote to have a debate.
Janine

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

If y'all at the RA meeting are gonna debate the existence of the evil HIV then I hope you all agree on using the same dictionary.

http://jemoreau.ca/images/hd.jpg

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I would also like to see some discussion of what the so-called "HIV genes" and "HIV genomes" are. Many years ago, Dr. Howard Urnovitz claimed that they might be snippets of human DNA, re-shuffled to create virus-like sequences. But he has not made any further explanation. Mae-Wan Ho also has important ideas that need to be embraced by the RA 2009 meeting. Announcing an important new book from ISIS - Unraveling AIDS

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

With her permission and in the public interest I am posting to this open forum Janine Roberts’s particulars of complaint against Rethinking AIDS president David Crowe, entitled ‘Citizen Crowe’.

The fact the RA board has never held Crowe to account for his misconduct in the Science letter episode that Roberts details in ‘Citizen Crowe’ nor for his inestimably graver delinquency in disrupting the defence strategy in the Parenzee case with calamitous consequences, in defiance of and in contempt of a RA board resolution following debate of the issue not to get involved in the case, bears out the charges I made in my ‘tokoloshe letter’ that

(a) to all practical intents and purposes the RA board is a toothless nominal entity that exists only for appearances sake;

(b) the RA board has no real management authority, and doesn’t exercise any oversight;

(c) Crowe considers the board’s nominal members to be his useful idiots for doing whatever he wants, and when they disapprove he persists under colour of acting as a ‘private citizen’;

Readers can draw what conclusions they will from the fact that the minutes of the inaugural RA meeting in June 2006 were kept off the RA website; and that when recently requested to produce them by a member of the RA Facebook group, Crowe directed him to his own personal ARAS website where he’d posted them. Naturally before doing so Crowe doctored the minutes by deleting the portion recording the RA board’s resolution not to go into the Parenzee case.

ANTHONY BRINK
Treatment Information Group
31 July 2009

Janine
I’ve just read your ‘Citizen Crowe’ post and I cannot believe my eyes.
It’s just completely unbelievable.
I was staggered.
This guy is a total sack of shit.
You’ve done us a considerable service in posting such a well-written memorandum of his behaviour.
It’s enormously revealing both of his contempt for the ‘RA board’ and its decisions and, more importantly, his utter lack of personal integrity.
Your stunning revelations indicate that Crowe is capable of anything, doing anything, saying anything.
I’m tempted to say RA deserves him.
Anyway thank you so much for the trouble you took over your ‘Citizen Crowe’ post.
It must have been damned unpleasant reliving the episode as you fished out and assembled the relevant email correspondence and history for us.
You say Crowe criticises me on his site too.
I hadn’t seen, and I don’t intend bothering to.
As the Germans say, ‘What does an oak care when a pig scratches his arse on his trunk?’
Thank you very much again.
Anthony

[Postscript: During a Skype call from JR on 30 July, she told me she had Crowe’s answer open on her computer screen, and read it to me. It changes nothing, and a full report about Crowe and his RA will be published in due course. Much information has come to the fore since my ‘tokoloshe letter’ was fired off.]

next....

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

‘Citizen Crowe’
30 July 2009 08:45 PM

Dear RA and Rethinking Activists,

A few days ago David Crowe put up a public webpage distorting my words, removing their context and saying that I was misleading people – attacking Val Turner and Anthony Brink as well. He particularly criticized my attempt to bring RA closer to the Perth Group. I asked for the webpage’s removal but this has not happened. Now I need to defend myself by explaining just why David may have selected me out. See The Truth about David Crowe, Rethinking AIDS and the RA 2009 Conference.

I have already sent this to David and a senior RA board member. I have told David that I have no intention of attacking him on my public websites, as he has done to three of us. This posting is for RA members and activists and is sent in the hope that factual information might allow us to address some of the issues now facing us – including whether we can manage to bring RA closer to Perth.

David and I had a horrible battle last year during which his actions and threats dismayed and shocked both myself and Christine Maggiore. She was horrified when he threatened to defy a RA Board’s resolution that she had secured. For me the battle lasted nearly three months. It left me depressed and without energy. The fight was so totally unexpected. The only reason that all of you may not know about this is that we tried to protect him afterwards.

But this is now germane to another case. As you all know, barrister Anthony Brink has accused David Crowe, RA President, of subverting the RA Board decision in the matter of the Parenzee trial, charging that contrary to his Board’s decision, David went ahead regardless as “Citizen Crowe”, claiming as such he had no obligations to follow his Board’s resolutions.

So why is this similar to what happened with us? In the Fall of 2008 I asked David for help in carrying out a project I had put to Gary Null on a visit to the States. I proposed what has since happened: a letter signed by heavyweight scientists calling for the withdrawal of the Gallo and Popovic papers on the grounds of major scientific fraud (the evidence in these papers and associated documents did not establish that a virus did or did not cause AIDS, but it did reveal that the papers contained major scientific deceit and fraud).

David agreed to find scientists and we co-drafted the proposed letter. As it happened, I rewrote much of it as we worked on. David more or less accepted my version.

Then on October 20th David announced he “was only interested in noted rethinkers as signatories.”

I pointed out:

“We drafted a letter to Science that can be signed by any scientist, whether or not they had come to a final view on HIV.”

Then, on 1st November David demanded control. He wrote:

“I thought that it was clear that this letter was under my signature and therefore it’s my responsibility and I have the final say.” (emphasis added)

He also declared it would be presented to the Science journal as a RA action:

“I am speaking of a cover note to the journal “Science” that I believe should be signed by a representative of RA.”

I replied in my view this would ensure the immediate rejection of the letter as a “denialist” propaganda piece.

Not knowing what else to do, I now went for advice to Peter Duesberg, putting to him my fear that David’s approach would jeopardize our eventual chance of success and proposing an alternative.

Peter replied on 8th November:

“Dear J, 100% d’accord. More later, Cordially, Peter.”

I sent this to David, but to my great surprise he rejected Peter’s advice. When I told Peter, he then suggested asking Professor Gordon Stewart for advice.

Gordon wrote to us and to David Crowe on 2nd November to say:

“Dear Ms Roberts, Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Peter Duesberg. I agree with you and Peter that it will be counter-productive to the main issue of deception in the publications about LAV/HTLV III etc in Science in 1983-84 if RA figures in the first letter to Science. I am sure that David Crowe will see the sense in this, especially since – whether or not the letter is published – the interest of RA can be expressed later.” (emphasis added)

But David ignored the advice of these senior RA Board members. He wrote to me on 13th November:

“RA involvement was in the original agreement [between him and me]....My [David’s] choices are 1. RA letter signed by Crowe 2. RA letter signed by Crowe and Roberts (I don’t think this is in Janine’s best interest as an ‘unbiased’ journalist, but it’s her choice).”

But I did not want to sign – I wanted a letter that Science might find hard to ignore. What to do? I spoke to Beth and then Christine.

Christine got David on the phone with me. She had a blunt proposal. She asked, would we both agree to follow the RA Board’s decision if I get it to vote on this? We agreed to write up our alternative proposals in a few paragraphs that would be submitted to the vote anonymously. It seemed the only way to resolve this.

A few days later the RA board voted unanimously for my proposal and rejected David’s.

But that was not the end of it.


next....

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

On 24th November, a week before the letter was to be released, I asked David for the email addresses of the letter’s signatories, so I could keep them up to date with progress afterwards. David’s reply was:

“We’ve already had an experience where your communications were at cross purposes to mine. (i.e. with Peter) If you wish to send them an email, I’ll need to know what it is first.” (Thus it is still impossible for me to contact everyone.)

Then on the 28th David wrote suggesting “what is your thought about the two of us signing?” This was contrary to the Board resolution for only having senior signatories and I said so. Next day David wrote “What about me signing as president of ARAS?”

Then on the 30th, a day before the letter was due to be released, David sent the following ultimatum:

“Janine, I made a big mistake by allowing this issue to be directed to the board. You have realized that we need a central point of contact. Unless you can come up with a solution in the next few hours, I will be reverting to my original plan and sending a cover letter under my signature as President of RA requesting correspondence be sent to me. You can co-sign if you want. The only way to avoid this is to come up with a practical plan in the next few hours. And asking one of our scientists to be the point person is not satisfactory. If I decide to change direction I will send a note to the board indicating why their first choice was not practicable.”

This was swiftly followed by another email:

“Janine: Your proposal requires one of the senior scientists to submit this so it is your responsibility to find a coordinator who is on the list of signatories. I will be sending the letter in Monday morning. I will need one of the scientists to agree to do this by then or I’m sending it in with a cover letter under my signature, solely as a coordinator. I will even agree not to list my affiliation with RA if that makes it better.”

There had been ages for David to find this coordinator – and now he making it into a last minute hoop I had to jump through.

I wrote to Gordon, Peter, Christine and Etienne to say:

“Friends - how do we deal with this? It was not just me but the Board that rejected an RA cover note. This is why our earlier very painful dispute had to be sent to the board for a decision. I had so much hoped it was now all over. (David and my names should not have been on the letter either – not something I ever wanted). Allies should not be fighting – so where is the angel of peace? Janine”

Prof Gordon Stewart answered the same day (11/30/08):

“Etienne, This is very disappointing, and calls for urgent action by the Board. I voted for proposal A and so, I think, did the other medical scientists on the Board. A letter from a nondescript group will be 100% non-productive and a letter from RA supporting it will discredit RA as well. I asked David for a copy of the final draft but he did not reply. I think that you as past-president are the best person to approach David immediately to ask him to delay sending both letters until the Board considers the difficulty. Gordon”

David now wrote to me:

“If no signatory is identified to me by the end of the day as being willing to coordinate communications with “Science” I will be attaching a cover letter under my name and signature, indicating that I will coordinate communications with the signatories. I will not identify myself with any organization and will include my corporate email address, if it comes to this.” (emphasis added)

I immediately replied:

“David, Whether or not you now wish you did not go to the board, we did agree to stick to their decision. I think you are honour bound to do so...”

Later that day I found one of signatories who was willing to be the point person. I had met David’s imposed deadline. The letter now was only one day from its scheduled release.

But it was to get worse. David replied the day the letter was to come out (1st Dec):

“It’s okay, I have a solution that doesn’t involve RA.”

Then later that day from David:

“I think we’re done talking. You went behind my back [to Peter and Gordon] ... You will get a copy of the letter when it’s done. My offer to give you email addresses has been withdrawn.”

Then:

“I have come up with a solution that meets the requirements of the board decision. RA will in no way be associated with the letter, except through the inclusion of board members like Gordon and Etienne [as signatories].”

His new plan was to present it himself as a private citizen – and include signatories who were not senior scientists.

Christine Maggiore wrote (9:46 AM - 12/1/08):

“We agreed that the first round signers would be senior scientists. The Null and Bell inclusions do not reflect the original, agreed-to plan. I know that David has stated these people are important allies and have contributed much to the efforts which is very true, but that does not change what we agreed to which is that the first round of signers would be senior scientists. Let’s stick to the original plan.”

David replied later on the !st December.

“Christine; I am not going to disinvite people. Null claims to have a PhD. That’s good enough for me. I just don’t understand why two somewhat lightweight signatures out of about 40 are a problem. Anyway, the RA board disavowed this as an RA action, so I am finishing this off on my own, as David Crowe, private citizen now.” (emphasis added)

Christine Maggiore immediately replied (12/1/08):

“This “angel of peace” is about ready to slam some heads together! The agreement was for Proposal A which states that senior scientists sign the letter going to Science and that the letter is NOT accompanied by an introduction from RA. This is what was agreed to by board vote and this quibbling is annoying, embarrassing and utterly unproductive. STOP! Christine Maggiore”

And Christine, outraged, at the very last moment, just hours before the letter was to be released, got David to refrain from issuing the letter under his own name, from defying the board and damaging the letter’s chance of success. Then Clark Baker stepped in and managed to persuade David that it was okay to remove less senior signatories from the initial letter if they agreed. I phoned Gary Null and he did so.

This is probably one of the last contributions Christine made to RA. For me and probably for her it was horrible and totally unexpected. It was also shattering and exhausting for me for I had to fight from October to December for the letter’s survival and best chance of success. Until this I had totally assumed that David would be a great ally. And I kept quiet about most of it.

Was it worth it? Only if we still keep on trying to use this hard won letter as a weapon, only if it is sent to scientific ethical bodies – something I am now discussing again with various scientists.

And what David announced he would do in our case is, I discover, exactly what Eleni and Anthony accuse him of doing in the Parenzee case. It brings up the issue of whether a RA president can thus evade Board resolutions he does not like and take control over other people’s projects as he tried to do with myself.

Now to get back to much more positive work.

Janine

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Mr. Brink,

thanks for your posts on these behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

As ugly as it all sounds, it's good to know what's happening.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

But what is happening? Is Anthony Brink and Janine Roberts going to the conference? I think that is the fair thing to do after all these shenanigans. The Perth group should be in RA conference.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I find it extremely sad that Christine had to endure this additional stress so soon before her death. It certainly did not help her health. It also makes me wonder how it was for her to collaborate with David in the podcasts. It could not have been easy for her, especially considering the other stresses, such as being portrayed as she was in several TV shows, that she had recently endured.

This apparent jockeying for power is counterproductive. It almost seems that RA has a megalomaniac at its head. This is no way to present a united front, which would be helpful in presenting a logical, well-reasoned argument in favor of rethinking. I had been wishing it was possible for me to attend the convention, but I just don't care anymore.

Linda

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I was wondering that, too, but I think Christine may have done only one podcast with the knowledge of what Crowe was doing since I believe the last show Christine recorded was in early December, 2008 (I think December 2nd), and this was just right around the time that all this other crap was rearing its ugly head.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I sincerely doubt whether or not it makes any sense at all to speculate if David Crowe's actions may have had a negative effect on Christine's health. I mean that is an infinitely small factor in comparison to all the other crap she had to endure, and entertaining such thoughts can be much more detrimental to a David Crowe's health.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Here's a question? If this has already been addressed, I apologize. I'm finding this thread impossible to digest. Why does Eleni Eleopulos have to be there in person? Why can't she deliver her remarks by video teleconference? The technology exists, at this point, to do this fairly cheaply via internet. Is there really no one tech savvy enough in RA to do this?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I think it's a good question. It may help bypass all the controversy with Anthony Brink representing her etc. But that won't make the problem that surfaces here go away. It can only reduce the consequences of the problem in discussion for the RA 2009, but RA as an organization will still be suffering from certain deficiencies brought up here. But the teleconference option is worth thinking about in my opinion. What do others think? What does Anthony Brink think?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I'd like to heartily endorse Brian's recommendation:

And I strongly caution each and every one of you NOT to (don't) jump to conclusions based solely on the posts of members. You are urged to investigate for yourselves whether any claim has merit or not. Members are duly urged, that if they should know of or find contradictory information as pertains to this, post it without hesitation.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Dear Mr Mind

May I call you Expansive?

To your great relief, I’m sure, there’s only one of me, so it’s Brink not Brinks. But by all means, Expansive, call me Anthony.

Thanks for your sympathy for my ‘frustration’. Speaking for myself, I must tell you that frustration isn’t the thing. It’s a matter of hosing out the over-ripe stables and I tell you it’s no great fun.

I find precision in speech useful, Expansive, for as George Orwell observed, the slovenliness in our language makes possible our foolish thoughts. And in this connection I’d say Janine Roberts was more than ‘a bit frustrated’ by Crowe’s attempt to hijack her Science letter project and then his attack on her on his website, as if he’s the unfairly wronged good guy.

> Your evidence suggests that Mr. Crowe seeks aggrandizement and control, and I am willing to accept that there may be a problem with Mr. Crowe’s administration of the RA group.

I can’t tell you how it warms my heart to hear you say this, Expansive. I really can’t.

> However, even that does not mean Mr. Crowe should not be in the position he is if he is the best at propagating rethinking

Well, is he, Expansive? Is he?

> and ensuring the RA Conference in Oakland occurs. My paramount concern is that RA continues to propagate rethinking at least as much as it currently does and the Conference occurs regardless of any change or lack of change.

Gee, I’m very sorry to hear this, Expansive. I really am. Do you really want all the newspapers reporting that a bunch of silly diehard AIDS dissidents still claim HIV doesn’t cause AIDS: it really, really exists just as Montagnier and Gallo and the rest of all the world's top AIDS experts correctly claim, only it doesn’t cause AIDS. But even though it undoubtedly exists, one of the professors giving a talk at the conference said no that’s wrong because although the world is full of retroviruses and we’re riddled with them, they are actually part of us, and not from the forest, and that contrary to what some obscure Australians say Montagnier undoubtedly did see a retrovirus, only it wasn’t HIV, it was a HERV.
Can you just imagine the gales of laughter in our direction, Expansive?
Can the staging of such an unbelievably stupid mixed-up confused scientific conference at which we can’t even agree why we disagree with AIDS orthodoxy really be your ‘paramount concern’, Expansive? Go on! You’re not pulling my leg, are you?

> Mr. Crowe, for all his apparent failings, has spent 100’s of hours working toward the RA Conference and gaining publicity for the rethinking cause and, at least publically, comes across as fair and courteous.

Oh, he’s courteous alright, Expansive, he’s courteous. Have you ever met a discourteous Canadian?! But sadly even though he’s courteous, many of us – and can confidently say the more serious-minded of us – find his ‘failings’ rather more real than ‘apparent’, and we find them so bad, so prejudicial to our movement, that we think he should say cheerio as soon as possible.
As for whether Mr Crowe is a ‘fair’ person or not, I think ‘Citizen Crowe’ says all that needs saying about whether he’s a ‘fair’ person or not.

next....

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

> At this point, continuing to paint a prejudicial picture of Mr. Crowe is unnecessary, but offering concrete, practical, possible actions is necessary.

Well in a fine democracy like yours, Expansive, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it don’t count much unless you’re very rich. But one thing at a time, and once Mr Crowe has said his cheerio that we’re all aching to hear, we can turn to some practical matters.

> So, my question is, What do you (or others) suggest be done that both addresses your concerns about Mr. Crowe’s apparent obstructionism, yet ensures that the propagating of rethinking continues apace and the Conference occurs in November?

This is a very fine question you asked, Expansive, and I’m sure glad you asked it. My answer is this. What should ‘be done’ is sack Crowe on the turn, and throw him out like a bum from a hotel vestibule.
Personally, I think the public conference should be postponed a bit for us to privately examine and address what our immense problems are. And take stock. An exercise that we’ve been putting off year after year after year. But that’s only my thinking, Expansive, and I’m not speaking for anyone else.

> It seems that replacing Mr. Crowe must have crossed some people’s mind, but this can only be done by the Board. If the Board is not willing to do so, do you have other ideas in mind? If the Board is willing to do so, who would replace him? If Mr. Crowe is replaced, will the replacement be able and willing to propagate rethinking at least as effectively and also ensure the RA Conference occurs successfully? Is now the best time to act on these concerns which are months and years old? Is anyone prepared to take up responsibilities that Mr. Crowe currently accepts to ensure a successful RA Conference?

These are most commendable forward-thinking questions to ask, Expansive, but I think we can stop at the first one. The RA board will not replace Crowe because the RA board serves Duesberg’s brand of ‘HIV is harmless’ science, and just about everything Crowe does promotes and supports that line. Even though he knows very well that it’s a false line to promote.

> There seems to be a serious, deep flaw in the workings of RA at present, but even if this is the case, there are more important issues that must take priority.

Thanks so much for saying this, Expansive. How right you are!

> The Conference in Oakland and propagation of rethinking are most important and must be the focus of any reconciliation of the problem--be it continuing to work with Mr. Crowe and his “limitations” or by replacing Mr. Crowe with someone else.

Well, there we’re no longer shaking hands, Expansive, because even though I’ve lost you syntactically I think I get your general drift. And I’m not in favour of propagating science I know to be false, just because, as Mr Crowe claims, many people aren’t clever enough to be given the simple truth, so it’s better to tell them lies about ‘HIV’. That it exists but is harmless. I don’t feel comfortable telling lies, Expansive, and I’m sure a nice person like you doesn’t either.

> Rethinking must not cannibalize itself, we are progressing, let us not digress.

Sadly, Expansive, this just ain’t so. We’re not ‘progressing’ at all. We need to ‘digress’, and this is precisely why I’ve been digressing over the last few weeks, to direct the focus on why we’re not ‘progressing’.
Thanks for your friendly note.

A

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Mr. Brink,

If "HIV" does not exixt at all, then what are the DNA and amino acid sequences that are claimed to be from "HIV"? Dr. Duesberg, who is a virologist after all, claims they are just human endogenous retrovirus. The orthodoxy is clearly working in their labs with something. Is it your claim that they just invent these DNA and protein sequences out of thin air? The Perth group just repeats the mantra "It does not exist." and never really address this issue.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

And what's THAT about?

Sounds like game-playing.

I realize that anybody reading this thread shouldn't just jump to conclusions. For myself, what I've read from Ms. Roberts, Mr. Brink and Mr. Knoll jibes with a lot of concerns and questions I've had for a long time since I found out there were other so-called "dissidents".

If Mr. Brink (being the most outspoken person on this thread) is way off base here, then I think his posts should be taken down and consider banning him, as his mean-spirited posts are most surely detrimental to the general tone of this board as well as AIDS dissidence in general. If he's way off base, then not only is HE incredibly irresponsible by writing such nasty vitriol, but so is AME by allowing his posts to stand.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Mr. A,

I'm not sure if this will answer your question, but it appears that there are many things in the lab that are called HIV.

Which of These is HIV?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

"Mr. A":

Messages like your latest are OFF-TOPIC. It seems from your messages that you are new to the dissident perspectives. If you have questions about the science, please DO NOT post them in this thread. Please post them in an ALL-NEW thread. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation with this request.

Rod Knoll
Co-Administrator
AIDSMythExposed.com
Welcome to AIDS Myth Exposed

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I am respecting rodknoll's request to move your question to a new thread, so I have addressed your comment here.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Sorry Rod. I thought "rethinking rethinking AIDS" was about whether or not HIV exists and has been isolated etc. And not just the squabble over the Tokoloshe letter etc.

It is my opinion that the movement to convince people that HIV does not cause AIDS would be aided most by a clear statement from several of the best rethinking scientists, about how the orthodoxy has been mislead into believing in these things (the so-called HIV "infectious molecular clones", and all).

I also thought the tread was about the upcoming RA-2009 conference, and the types of topics that should be discussed there. I think Dr. Urnovitz and Mae-Wan Ho are two of the most important scientists to make contibutions to understanding where the orthodoxy went wrong in thinking that "HIV" is an exogenous virus.

If this thread is only about the Tokoloshe letter and squabbles over it, then please start a new "sticky" thread about whether or not HIV exists.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Mr. Brink,

Thank you for clarifying your hopes and motivations for writing the Tokoloshe letter. You would like to "postpone" the RA Conference and stop David Crowe from speaking on behalf of RA.

Mr. Brink says:Mr. Brink, you are saying that David Crowe says that hiv exists but is harmless, however, after reviewing some of Mr. Crowes public statements and recordings I rediscovered this video where he states that, “…there has never been any purification of the virus. There truly is no proof that hiv exists.” (3:00)

On David’s website for Alberta Reapraising Aids Society he has articles that also state that there is no proof that hiv exists.

"No particle of 'HIV' has ever been obtained pure, free of contaminants; nor has a complete piece of 'HIV' RNA (or the transcribed DNA) ever been proved to exist."


Also the article: Let HIV Set you Free

And this quote from a paper written by David Crowe himself and maintained on his personal website on the issue of criminalizing hiv transmision:

"HIV purification has been attempted many times, but it has always failed. Despite the billions of dollars spent on HIV research, HIV has never been purified, not even once. Two analyses of what had previously been claimed as ‘purified HIV’, published in the same journal in March, 1997, showed that at least 90% of this material was impurities. In fact, 100% of the material being examined might be bits and pieces of cells and not originating from a virus."

It is a lie to say that Mr. Crowe tells people that it exists but it is harmless, when clearly his view has been and seems still to be that there is no proof that hiv exists. I do not understand why you are misrepresenting Mr. Crowe in this manner, and I caution people to go back to Mr. Crowe's interviews, papers and his Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society website and see if Mr. Crowe feels that "people aren’t clever enough to be given the simple truth, so it’s better to tell them lies about ‘HIV’" as our inventive Mr. Brink says.

The most important issue is that RA has been successful in increasing publicity for rethinkers. In this effort, David has done a fine job. When he speaks publically, he does an excellent job of representing the rethinking view accurately and inclusively.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

It seems to me that you're the one who wants to simplify the message, as if people aren't clever enough to read a variety of scientific opinions, and make up their own minds. Enchanted Mind has already established that David Crowe has provided a forum for both opinions he's inclined towards and those he's not. For whatever failings he may be guilty of, and Janine Roberts's experience with her letter is quite concerning, he does not appear to want to delimit what is now a range of opinion, because of what he personally "knows" to be "false."

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Expansive Mind, your post sheds valuable light on this discussion.

It may be that David exercised poor judgement with Janine's letter, but he has been a valuable stalwart in our battle. I particularly disliked Brink's scatalogical insult in post 107. Certainly, if we wish the leaders of the movement to work together, it's better to work out a list of points to iron out and discuss them (at the RA conference, for example) than to drag each other through the mud.

Anthony, you've said your peace, now how about outlining the differences that have to be ironed out and where you think a consensus might be possible.

I also like the suggestion made elsewhere that we could achieve the Perth Group's participation with a video link. The RA conference would be enriched by their input.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

There is only one difference to be "ironed" out and that is the long standing dichotomy of whether the little bugger exists or not. Truly the Achilles heel of the dissident movement which will only be resolved when one side or the other knuckles under; a scenario which I don't see happening in anybody's lifetime. IM pessimistic HO of course.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Oigen,

You are right to be pessimistic about the dissent cause.

Not only no one wants to give way to the existence or not of HIV, but nobody wants to try to find an intermediate hypothesis that could satisfy the two (three) parts.

For my part, it seems clear that Montagnier, Barré-Sinoussi and Chermann have found something they have identified and they have carried out through its replication of the cells immortal. But they did not say that HIV was the cause of AIDS.

But it seems to me that in fact they discovered among those patients, a structure that exists for everyone, but whose presence has been increased tenfold or hundredfold.

This structure could in fact be responsible for the natural death of cells, but not to the point of eliminating all immune cells.

According to what I have read, this HIV may well be definitively the source of small quantities of an oxidizing agent capable of destroying the cell membrane.

But this oxidizing agent may have been introduced in large quantities in the human body over the last fifty years by the use of recreational drugs and medicines, as well as nutritional deficiencies.

On the other hand, some studies show that the presence of this oxidizing agent promotes the emergence of HIV.

Thus, all these causes would have worked in the same way as HIV, as I described (one HERV), by amplifying in excess its action.

So I could say that HIV is the tree that hides the forest.

In this hypothesis, we find that HIV is real (Duesberg, orthodoxy), it is endogenous (Perthgroup), it is very little dangerous (and not harmless, Duesberg), that the real cause of AIDS is the chemistry (Duesberg), causing a hyperoxydation (Perthgroup).

As AZT is a compound that releases this oxidizing agent under certain conditions, one can understand why the dissidents have accused AZT to cause AIDS, and they were right.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

There's one fundamental difference, but there are also such points as what are the undelying mechanisms of AIDS, who can speak for whom, how we can get to present the fundamental difference in a unified manner, whether we can together find the funding the Perth Group requests to perform the definitive tests it proposes...

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Hi everyone, I am away from home until mid august so please excuse me coming in late whan I post....
I am afraid I have something to add to what Anthony reposted here -- my Citizen Crowe piece -and perhaps it is more important still for the future. it relates to the person who asked if I would be at the RA confernece.

It addesses just how open is RA to new ideas.

I said I wanted to speak at the RA conference before all the recent upset, or turmoil happened. I wrote to the organising committee, and offered to show how the lack of isolation of HIV is a symptom of a far bigger malaise in virology - I would cite ithe key isolation experiments for measles and polio -for example, and show they were also vitally flawed. I believe I can demolish these experiments just like I did recently with HIV. (see Fear of the Invisible and the letter to Science)

What answer did I get? David replied for me to speak on this would be "divisive" and that some attendees might not come if they heard I was to speak on this. I believe that there is only one explanation for his reaction - David feared that the old guard in RA would protest.
But David also told me he agrees with me - that other viruses are equally poorly isolated and proved pathogenic... So how to explain his answer? (Likewise for the Perth group - david says he agrees with them - so why their exclusion? Perhaps the answer is the same?
As RA president - it seems he sees his job as to preserve the consensus among RA old guard and thus such topics as mine are off the agenda.

It was not only David however that I heard from. One member of RA's board privately wrote to me to say he would be thrilled to see such a subject at an RA conference - and Andy said it could be extremely important...

However a senior member of RA's Board wrote to try to persuade me that my topic just was too scientific for this conference, that it simply was not the place to question the roots of virology...

i also directly corresponded with Peter Duesberg, asking for his views on HIV isolation - and, as others saw, Peter wrote back saying why was I questioning him on this and not Gallo!! But I do question Gallo - there are chapters on him in my book. The only thing is, I must also question our heroes.

So where am I now as far as the RA conference is concerned. As things currently stand, I am on the outside, a dissident too far, a rethinker too far... And - I am writing a further book on this, I will not go away. I will do my best not to let this poverty stricken science stand.

What if I had been permitted to speak, what would I have said. I would have cited a current CDC paper on how to "isolate the measles virus" and shown it is vitally flawed, rivalling in poverty that of Gallo and Popovic on HIV. I would have also taken the conference to the key original experiments on polio, those cited around the world as isolating polio - and shown they also ridiculously flawed.

Yet what does Peter Duesberg say on polio - I am utterly unsure if he has studied it as I can find no papers by him on it, but he says in passing that it is HIV that was misidentified, not polio. I have again asked for his comments on this and again he evaded my question - yet he is a wonderful courageous professor who has suffered hugely for his questioning of HIV - I have his books beside me as I type... so I am not out to get this gentle and bold professor in any way at all - I just want to go to take the debate on further.

The Perth group speaks of the golden standards of isolation -- but these are now widely thrown in the bin by the descendants of Gallo, and by misled younger scientists following the trails left by their elders... - rejected for cheaper procedures that do not isolate at all.

If measles isolation is as faulty - just think of what might gi wrong with our children? All this is hugely important to how we campaign - and especially to where we seek allies. At my recent talk there were at least 6 HIV+ people - and ordinary parents who have not come near AIDS science before but have learnt to question virology were quickly on side...

Now, I know I am pressing the boundaries of virology, but - without peers to discuss my findings with, with exclusion, it hurts me - and I go foward slower.

And - is this really so difficult for rethinkers to understand too tough or an RA audience? I have just talked to a packed audience in London composed of parents with a fair mixture of scientists who use PCR, with nutritionists and others - and the reaction - it was inspiring said many - a few said it will take some digestion but it was great... There is potentially huge numbers of allies - I get scores of emails from parents every morning.. they are getting near to civil disobedience over flu and other vaccines... and they are increasingly questioning virology..

We also recently had wonderful meetings in Greece..

So how do I go forward, how do we... well i am up to doing talks in the USA if fares can be met... we could organise workshops, press ahead, dream exciting science, read real biology that can leave the virologists floundering in the past.

And as we turn from hunting viruses to hunting toxins and other non-viral causes of ill health - we start to put our healing work in its right place.

We must not rest in the current muck.

Janine





















for other well known viruses such as measles and polio are also not being isolated and proved pathogenic, that PCR has replaced practically totally what the Perth Group call the golden standard of isolation. I was going to cite the key isolation experiments for- and show how t

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

while away, for reasons my computer knows best, I am having problems posting on hivaidsparadigms - so would someone who can please post this for me there as well. Thank you

Janine

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Janine,

I think I've figured something out.

The RA folks are essentially the 'old guard' of virology. They're going to try and keep virology intact, despite HIV/AIDS being virology's greatest failure, and then some!!

Now Duesberg's position makes more sense to me (although I disagree with it). He's trying to hang onto virology as we've known it, AND trying to disprove that HIV causes AIDS.

I really can't imagine (despite having a pretty good imagination) that virology will survive once the HIV/AIDS fraud is common knowledge. I mean, what a failure of immense proportions!! How could the public (and even "scientists") try to maintain their faith in virological science after AIDS is exposed?

This is also INTIMATELY tied in with our current alllopathic model of "health care" where the body is simply a battleground for microbes, drugs and surgery. At some point, the dam is going to burst, and once it's no longer profitable (for whatever reason) to drug people and cut them up, we'll be looking to crazy things like nutrition, supplementation and other holistic ways of treating people rather than carpet-bombing them with drugs and such.

For me, it's been sad to see the naturopathic/holistic community embrace the HIV/AIDS dogma. I remember seeing a 'natural health' book put out by Bastyr here in Seattle...they make mention of AIDS and Duesberg's questioning the dogma and they tear him a new hole! Wow. Talk about denial!!

Anyway...I could certainly be wrong, but I don't think virology will withstand HIV/AIDS being torn down. And in my opinion, it makes Duesberg's battle look Sisyphean (sp.).

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Janine and Dan,

Etienne De Harven is giving a talk on Questioning HIV at the conference and he seems to advocate the position that there is no proof that hiv exists. The conference is not avoiding the issue of existence, in fact, if you look at the program, there is not a single talk that tries to say that hiv exists but is harmless!

According to David Crowe, there have been many people that wanted different talks, more on one subject or another and the fact is there is only so much time and space.

As far as Janine's specific talk topic, I understand that the biggest reason that your talk topic was not put on the program is that the Conference is to focus on hiv. Your talk, while wonderful, and as you point out, David agrees with it's theme, is more broad and is more about virology in general. As far as what to do to get an additional forum or Conference, I believe David Crowe might assist as would many others:

As David has said this is a starting point. This is the first real and true rethinkers conference and we have to just be patient and realize that, if we work together and do not torpedo the whole thing, that there will be more. I am sure that everyone will get their chance at the podium over the years as long as we continue to work together and support the effort.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

expansive mind, why do you say it is a starting point?? THere have been other conferences and they are all as boring. Banning the Perth group and Janine Roberts shows how bad off RA is and how messed up dissidence is right now. They have one conference and they can fit in other topics than the same old stories.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Dear Mr Mind
You say:

It is a lie to say that Mr. Crowe tells people that it exists but it is harmless, when clearly his view has been and seems still to be that there is no proof that hiv exists. I do not understand why you are misrepresenting Mr. Crowe in this manner, and I caution people to go back to Mr. Crowe's interviews, papers and his Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society website and see if Mr. Crowe feels that "people aren’t clever enough to be given the simple truth, so it’s better to tell them lies about ‘HIV’" as our inventive Mr. Brink says.

Please be so good as to reread my 'tokoloshe letter' on this site. (Administrator's note: Click on this link: http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34462 )
You'll see I don't tell the lie you think I tell.
Thank you so much Mr Mind!
AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Dear Dan in Seattle

Re the RA functioning as a reactionary Old Guard:

You and I see it the same way, Dan. We see it the same way!

AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Expansive Mind,

You miss the point. David's email to me rejecting the topic solely said that my topic would be "divisive" and that it might put off people from coming - It is this I am discussing. His initial email to me did not say the agenda was full, or that there was not time.

So - why might it be "divisive?" David did not ask questions about my topic, I was not asked to contribute a synopsis. I simply said I wanted to site the issues about HIV in the context of virology as a whole.

My reflections are entirely on this initial reaction - and thus my suggestion that he thinks virologists are planning to come that would not want to put the controversy over HIV in the context of virology as a whole - and object to the point of absenting themselves if it were. I am not saying he is wrong on this - he knows better than I if it is true.

And I reiterate - it is not as if David scientifically disagrees with me - he has assured me that is not so. Thus he is speaking of others in RA.

And as I mentioned, emails received from RA board members on this have been contradictory. One said it would be wonderful to have such a discussion and another, while entirely friendly, said issues relating to virology as a whole are not suitable for RA 2009.

But - is excluding wider viewpoints for being wider - rethinking?

Finally, what about the refusal to have Eleni's chosen stand-in speak for her at the conference, a man widely praised for his brilliant work on antiretrovirals and whom Eleni trusts to answer questions?

Please ask if he is right to feel anger at Eleni's exclusion, and at what Eleni reports happened during the Parenzee trial. That for me is the issue generating this fire and brimstone.

Yes he has let loose his scathing anger - and neither Eleni or I have ever written in such a way...and yes, I would not . But - please address the real issue that triggered off this so angry outburst. Again it is exclusion.

Perhaps it is really healthy that this has come out now, months before the conference. It gives a chance to compromise - for diplomacy and for apologies.. in the interests of bringing about a more united movement...

This should now be high on the agenda on all sides. Please RA conference organisers, do not dig in heels.

Janine

PS - Rod - could you post this and my recent long email on the way forward across onto the hivaidsparadigms site.. thank you

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Perhaps all this infighting will prove to be pointless.

Anybody consider that the pharma-loonies and 'truthies' may come and try to disrupt the bland offerings at the RA conference?:(

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Obviously I am in no position to speak for RA, nor the committee or whatever that organizes the Conference. I speak for myself as someone who is grateful that a Conference is going on and is grateful that someone like David Crowe has so tirelessly worked to get the word out to the world.

Janine, I am very sorry that you are not going to speak at the Conference, but I do not think you are helping yourself in the long run. What about next year? As for the Perth Group, how are you helping? Mr. Brink is not the Perth Group, and no other speakers are speaking by proxy. Eleni and Val can not attend on their own. Maybe they can attend via video conference, why don't you work to implement that option? Or is this whole brou haha about Mr. Brink? One man against all others? Why are you letting him lead you by the nose to your own detriment?

Mr. Brink, you specifically accused Mr. Crowe of something that is demonstrably false, maybe not in your letter, but here on this forum and in front of everyone. You also specifically stated your crusade is to stop, or "postpone" the RA Conference, ostensibly until you get your way. You are demanding to destroy the work of many and hope of hundreds to avenge your hurt ego. What a shame.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

EXpansive, youre crazy. What are you talking about dude? Who are you anyway as a "senior member"? You are lying and you are in RA. You act like the conference already happened so thats why Janine and Perth cant come but the conference HASNT HAPPENED YET DUMMY> so they can come if RA stops being so stupid about it. And Anthony Brink is in Perth, so what are you talking about? If Eleni says Anthony is their person to talk for them then HE IS IN PERTH you dummy!

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

PS I guess there are dissidents and then there are scientists and they are really different than each other and RA is for dissidents.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Simon: If scientists did their job properly, there would be no need for "dissidents." They decided to ignore the scientific method, not me. Give me the funds and I'll conduct experiments that are "on point" and properly controlled, to the extent that I can legally do so.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Simon,

Please review who the members of the Perth Group are on this link.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

My take on matters is "who watches the watchers" and the answer is "we do" - as in we lay people who have the courage to confront the orthodoxy, to break with the herd, to ask questions, to explore the answers given, to say "I don't understand", and so on.

It's possible that there are sub-orthodoxies developing within our very own dissidence, but by our nature, most of us will resist those too.

So, if the RA conference devolves into proselytizing, I predict that many of the attendees will not accept it. We will ask our questions, chew on the answers, and propose an agenda for future conferences. A lot of us would be seriously put off if our hard-earned money is 'rewarded' with propaganda.

If the Perth Groupers (and as I've said, I'm inclined - strongly I might add - to their position) would like me to bring some of their questions, recommendations and concerns with me to the conference, just email me at jrbleau@sympatico.ca.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I am curious. Is this the same David Crowe who has been a long time executive in the Green Party of Alberta? If you go to the Facebook Group called Greens in Alberta you will find a great deal of information in some of the discussion groups that show how Crowe has operated in the past, and that Crowe and his friends fled the Green Party AGM and tried to hold a secret meeting in the parking lot (unbeknownst to hundreds inside the hall),. Now it is my understanding that he may be under investigation for extortion, fraud, forgery and submitting false documents.

Attention to AME readership: For more information about the issues Mary has raised, please go to:
http://www.seemagazine.com/article/n.../politics0723/

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Ok, this is a witchhunt.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

In my ‘Tokoloshe Letter’ and several times since it, I have levelled the terrible charge that David Crowe is a person who habitually tells lies.

Now as a lawyer with two decades of daily experience in picking truth from lies, I’m real careful about the distinction between telling the truth and telling lies. And as a former magistrate for many years of both the district and regional courts (for small time and big time criminals) and the civil court too (for hot private disputes), I’ve watched a lot of liars at work: blatant liars, both obvious and cunning; your more devious smooth-talking liars; and the kind of casual liars who naturally tell lies without even thinking twice about it. And as a prosecutor and later High Court advocate, I’ve hounded many liars down in cross-examination. Hounded them down to bloody pieces.

Some liars tell lies regularly as they make their way in life, while others are wont to tell lies when in a jam. And when in a jam they think that it’s best to tell lies to get themselves out of it, perhaps because they’ve successfully lied their way out of tricky jams before.
Of course there are basic distinctions between different kinds of lies themselves, including big ones and little ones, but lies all the same.

And finally, some people make mistakes in the things they say, but you would never call them liars. Lying is on purpose, to deceive.

Straight and Crooked Thinking by Robert Thouless is a book I read as a boy and it had a mighty big impact on me, the way it showed how to spot the kind of tricks dishonest people use to make their arguments.

Most people know that going around telling lies in life gets you into big trouble eventually, so it’s best not to tell lies. And the other thing is you don’t go calling people liars if that’s not true, because doing such a horrible thing can only redound to your discredit. Meaning backfire on you in a big way. It makes you look the liar of the piece. (Obviously it’s just as bad calling a person a thief without good reason, and for the same reason.)

In the light of these rather hard opening remarks, let’s examine Crowe’s most recent post.
He assures Janine and Dan, and of course everyone else listening:

‘Etienne De Harven is giving a talk on Questioning HIV at the conference and he seems to advocate the position that there is no proof that hiv exists. The conference is not avoiding the issue of existence, in fact, if you look at the program, there is not a single talk that tries to say that hiv exists but is harmless!’

Now a truthful person wouldn’t fudge things like this, with an exclamation mark to denote unreasonably injured innocence. But being a habitual liar, Crowe can’t help himself. He’s addressing, I think, the failure of the original conference programme drawn by David HIV-is-a-harmless-retrovirus Rasnick to include a scientific presentation that it isn’t, that the harmless retrovirus he believes in, merely because Peter does, hasn’t ever been shown to exist.

The reason Rasnick contrived to leave the existence of ‘HIV’ right out of the conference programme is because obviously were this subject to be presented, the awful subject that Peter and he avoid at all cost, they’d have their noses rubbed in it, so to say, and would come off looking very foolish, very foolish indeed, having adamantly insisted for more than 20 years that ‘HIV’ is a very real retrovirus, one of between 3000 and 4000 retroviruses that have been catalogued – so Rasnick tells Americans TV viewers very impressively, even as he’s just making this up from nothing. But you’ve got to admit it sounds extremely impressive, especially to Bud-belching, flag-salutin’ American TV gapers, and it leaves you with the idea that wow this important guy really knows what he’s talking about.

How Rasnick invited Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos the author of the missing virus critique of AIDS to the conference, but tried confining her to speak only about why HIV tests aren’t reliable, and what happened thereafter, is too well known now to warrant repeating.

Naturally Rasnick is as pleased as hell that he’s succeeded in excluding ventilation of the missing virus problem at the conference, because this means his meal-ticket Peter gets to speak there without jeopardy of being toppled like Saddam Hussein’s statue in Bagdad when the Americans got tired of him and threw him out.

But maybe being Canadian, Crowe has the nous to realize that Rasnick’s typical American arrogance, his characteristic American contempt for the truth in matters of international relations, is going to cause big trouble down the track. Even though he’s got the money on his side.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

So what does Crowe do to mollify the situation – in his mind at any rate? He tells Etienne de Harven, at whom he’s just waved his cane as President of RA and told him not to write any more emails complaining about the failure of the conference to deal with the isolation problem, not until he’s sent them to him first to vet and approve, the same move he tried pulling on Janine Roberts, can you believe it, and he says, Listen Etienne, that buffoon Rasnick’s caused us big problems by rejecting the person Eleni considers more knowledgeable about her science than anyone else in the world outside her Perth Group. And I didn’t help things by agreeing with him, and pouring fuel on the flames as I did so by cooking up the most transparently stupid and dishonest further pretexts to justify his decision, so I want you to drop your proposed learned disquisition on murine leukaemia viruses, and I want you to present Eleni’s science on the missing virus to the conference. Don’t worry that she doesn’t consider you qualified to present her incalculably important, historic, original science on her behalf. We’re not bothered by things like ethics over here at RA, especially since I took over. Just read all her published research again, her analyses and her monumentally important and original discovery concerning ‘HIV’, and present it at the conference without her permission. As if it’s commonplace stuff, common knowledge now. You can contradict her and tell the conference that you know better than she does when it comes to interpreting EMs, and that contrary to what she points out, Montagnier unquestionably did see a retrovirus, only it wasn’t HIV it was a HERV.

The title Crowe gives Etienne for the new talk is right out of his own crooked mouth, ‘Questioning the existence of HIV’. Oh, he’s always questioning it, is Crowe, and you’d think he hasn’t found the answer yet, because he won’t use the past tense and say: I’ve questioned it, I’ve read everything Eleni has written about it, Montagnier’s, Gallo’s and other papers too that she discusses, and I can see as clear as daylight that there is no virus, and Peter is talking one enormous heap of shit in claiming there is. It’s so very obvious to everyone.

But no, Crowe wants to play it all ways, for only by playing it without any commitment to the truth can he continue to play in RA and be our boss, he thinks.

Crowe says Etienne ‘seems to advocate the position that there is no proof that hiv exists’.
This is standard Crowe at his phenomenally, nauseatingly dishonest. Crowe well knows that Etienne doesn’t ‘seem to advocate’ this ‘position’ at all. He most decidedly advocates the position, this position of Eleni’s.

Doesn’t Crowe and his compulsive lying, even when it’s not necessary for him to lie, make you want to vomit?

The reason he speaks deceptively about what he knows Etienne thinks, indeed what he himself thinks, is because he wants the simple truth of the matter suppressed. He wants it varnished and obscured because the simple truth of the matter would rock the RA boat and its most important passengers: Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick and Bob Leppo – Peter’s, Rasnick’s (I believe) and RA’s financier, who proposed Crowe as president of RA. Crowe has traded truth for personal power and he doesn’t want things upset. The truth he’s traded is that there is no virus at the heart of the AIDS construct, and he’s very well aware of it. He knows and understands this very well. Since Peter and Rasnick, supported by Leppo, say contrariwise that there is most certainly a virus there, only it’s harmless, Crowe won’t orientate RA to propound true and honest science. He’s happy to be president of an organization whose main man is perpetuating what everyone with any brains knows is a scientific falsehood: the lie, frankly, that there’s a virus out there infecting people, especially black people, called HIV.

Crowe’s lies continue gushing: ‘The conference is not avoiding the issue of existence, in fact, if you look at the program, there is not a single talk that tries to say that hiv exists but is harmless!’
Top of the conference bill is Peter, and only a congenital liar would pretend otherwise. And what is the major conclusion of the paper he’ll present in the section under the heading ‘Is HIV a passenger virus’? The major conclusion is: ‘In sum, we conclude that HIV is a passenger virus.’
Apart from his childish lying, look at the childish way this person writes: ‘there is not a single talk that tries to say’.

Crowe’s statement is calculated to deceive, which is to say is fraudulent. You get the impression he’s done a lot of verbal wriggling like this in his life, and you wonder why. Admittedly his dissembling here is relatively trivial, but as we see it’s symptomatic of his habitual dishonesty. Is it really any surprise that the Greens kicked him out the party recently? Someone who can’t say a single thing straight, everything twisted, self-serving, sickening.

Here are some more of Crowe’s lies, lies of the more stupid and blatant variety:

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

> I expect several people to address this issue [that there is no proof that hiv exists], most notably Etienne.

This is manifestly false. Aside from Etienne, now that his title has been changed at the last minute to enable him to present Eleni’s science on the missing virus problem without her permission, none of the other speakers are to address this, if one has regard to the titles of their talks; and it’s hardly the sort of pivotal, technical, scientific subject that can be slipped in at the end of a talk on another completely different subject. Crowe probably bullshits his daughters like this, who, because they adore him, don’t see immediately that he’s lying to them. This is the impression created by his stupid childish tone.

Here’s another whopper:
> We have had requests from people like Anthony to devote the conference entirely to the existence issue.

I’ve never made even one such request, let alone several. Not one. Having no regard for truth, Crowe conflates my polemics in this forum, after being rejected in bad faith as Eleni’s nominee to present her science, with a post by Jason Hart here in Cape Town, the post that ignited the controversy in a different forum a couple of weeks ago.
In his response to that post Crowe immediately began the lying that has typified his communications since, and it presaged what was to follow.

Jason opined: ‘I believe the isolation issue IS the central issue, and I know that many others agree.’

Indeed, veteran AIDS dissident Mike Ellner in New York came out to confirm this. So did Etienne. Crowe’s slimy lying response was: ‘I believe that it is one of the important issues, but not the only one.’

But Jason did not contend that the isolation issue is ‘the only one’. He stated his view that ‘the isolation issue IS the central issue’.

Crowe disingenuously parried Jason’s contention by replying not to what he actually said, but to words that he made up and put in his mouth, in the style of a fraudster ducking and diving under cross examination in the witness stand.

Neither Jason nor any other AIDS dissident I know believe the isolation issue is the only issue.
That includes me, which is why I’ve worked so hard on ARVs. But all of us agree it’s the central issue.

‘ExpansiveMind’ stated: ‘As far as Janine's specific talk topic, I understand that the biggest reason that your talk topic was not put on the program is that the Conference is to focus on hiv. Your talk, while wonderful, and as you point out, David agrees with its theme, is more broad and is more about virology in general. …’

The lie to Crowe’s lying pretext for rejecting Janine Roberts’s request to be permitted to speak about so-called polio and so-called measles viruses and the integrity of Medicine’s virology construct generally is given by the fact that Crowe considered it fine for Etienne to talk all about his ‘retroviruses’ generally, including those he claims cause cancer in mice but somehow not in humans. But to expose the myths of viral polio and viral measles, no, that’s too heavy for Peter, he might walk out, just as he did when Eleni started speaking at the second meeting of Mbeki’s AIDS Advisory Panel in July 2000, and we can’t have that, we can’t upset the main man by suggesting that although he’s very amusing and warm and charismatic and loveable, his science is a Jurassic joke and it’s the biggest obstacle to the promotion of true, correct and what’s more politically and strategically effective science by a unified AIDS dissident community, focussed, informed, thinking clearly, and attacking the HIV-AIDS model with laser-beam concentration at it’s weakest point: ‘HIV’, the point they couldn’t win on the science in the Parenzee case, even with the biggest gun they could wheel in and aim, Robert Gallo, the inventor of the whole thing.

Crowe obviously has to go.

He’s stupid, dishonest, ineffective, and about as charismatic and inspirational a leader as a used teabag.

AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

You got that right; and may lead to the knell of the dissident movement.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Anthony, here's an idea: organize a conference. Maybe next summer or fall 2010.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Anthony,

This is getting out of hand. David Crowe posts on this forum as himself, and obviously, he does so infrequently. Some of the "lies" you ascribe to him are simply my ignorance or 'childishness' if you prefer. The only words from him are the ones I specifically quoted.

Listen, I have spent some time looking at your work and what you have done in the fine country of South Africa. You've done a lot of good there.

However, even if David hates Perth and lies his way through the political minefield of the international dissident groups, he, like you, has done a lot of good over here on this side of our spinning globe.

The reason I do not support your call to remove David is because you are not providing a vision for a Post-Crowe dissidence which is at least as public, vocal, and effective. I do not know how giving the Perth Group more exposure is going to bring down AIDS INC. AIDS INC will likely brush Eleni and Val aside just as they do everyone else. However, maybe you know something about this that the rest of us do not. Maybe you think that courts will take the word of Eleni and Val. Maybe you think you can trott them into the ICC and have them prove Gallo is a liar and fraud. If you can do that, then do it. If you have a vision or sound strategy for how RA or dissidents in general can actually beat AIDS Inc., please say it and try not to even mention David. However, if you have no vision, no strategy that can keep dissidents at least as effective as they are, then it is foolish to change the way things are at present.

The bitterness of this conflict will lead to disaster, and I cannot see how a man like you would want to damage dissidents.

Please sir, inspire us: Win this conflict by showing a better strategy, not through savagery upon others.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Dear Expansive Mind
As to future moves, if only for now, I must keep my lips sealed.
But the grave issues I raise warrant taking up with the RA board by you AIDS dissidents out there, don't you think?
Meanwhile watch this space.
Cheers
A

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

The need for this conflict to be expressed and processed is past the point of no return. Very serious charges have been raised which go to the heart of dissident ethics and integrity. The behavior of RA in the form of its director and whatever internal forces determine what issues it addresses as important and what should be given priority at a conference must include the core conflict of viral junk science.

David Crowe's lack of comments on this topic are disturbing. He has made a few brief posts on this thread that stand out in there lack of substance. Personal honor and moral integrity "should" demand a full vigorous and open discussion by Crowe. We know he is alive - the question is as alive as what and how. Staying silent is not an option unless evasion and hiding are the intention.

RA does not belong to to anyone person or any few people. The old guard is now faced with conflict and change. Careers and beliefs that were built on scientific junk should not be mistaken for true knowledge or leaders and the reputations, alliances and financial backing that flow down the toilet of dissident orthodoxy must be challanged, discarded where necessary, and be recreated within the creative fire of dissident reality purging.

The Perth group needs to have direct representation at this conference determined by their choice of speaker. Janie Roberts, as an expert in the non existence of virus's needs to present her case. This means revising the speaking schedule and eliminating other less important talks. If the need to address the systemic core problem of viral fiction is not meet with honor and fairness, there will be, by necessity, a splitting off of the old RA and a creation of a new RA.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Actually no I don't think so.

You are just holding us hostage to your little drama and frankly it is sad and damaging.

You'd better be able to stop AIDS Inc. altogether and in short order, otherwise you will prove to be worse than Kalichman and Snout.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Orthodox thinkers want to get dissidents to all agree that HIV does not exist, so that they can prove it does, and prove us all wrong. Granted, their proof might be just some legal classification, and not reality, but that is all they need.

I, personally, have dozens of other problems with HIV=AIDS theory, where whether HIV exists or not is not even my main concern. It is DOES exist, i still have the exact same questions. I don't think that HIV's existence should be a dividing factor to any of us. There are so many other flaws that can defeat HIV=AIDS, whether HIV exists or not.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Mr. Brink,

How is it that you are going to be better at leading the world-wide effort of dissidence than you have been in your back yard of South Africa?

You have not been able to win a single legal case against AIDS Inc. You have not freed your own neighbors and countrymen from the hiv scandal.

How is your judgment going to help those in Australia, Europe, or North America when you can't even oust AIDS Inc. from your own backyard?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

T. Rex:

The problem with ignoring the issue is that some of us, myself including, think that the only reasonable interpretation of the existing evidence is that "HIV" is a cellular response to stress, "natural" but not a "good sign," though in the case of "HIV," we are looking at lab artifact, and of course their "studies" have not been properly controlled (which is why I have proposed simple and inexpensive experiments that would be properly controlled as well as definitive). Thus, "HIV" may be a predictor of ill health in the future, and not a "harmless passenger virus." It's not clear how much exosomal "cellular budding" as a toxin removal mechanism occurs naturally. Trying to study that may create such phenomena, and so if anyone knows of a study that solves that problem please cite it here.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

who says hiv is bad? guys - i've got this for 23 years now and counting. and honestly never felt better all my life. no meds, just eat drink and live my life as normal as possible. hiv as a sign of stress? who really cares? i stopped caring about an imaginary or real virus or particles called hiv 15 years ago - and am still here, alive and well.

and the more i think about it the more i am convinced that people get sick from this because they are continously bombarded with news that hiv is bad, that it kills, that they need to go onto treatment or else they die.

the best any one can do is take all that nonsense with a pinch of salt, stay informed, stay away from the brainwash and live as normal as is humanly possible.

and i totally suppor hans here - the (non) existence of hiv should not divide us, we should unite more over all this nonsense, fight harder, challenge the orthodoxy where ever we can and fight for our right to exist. lets not forget one thing: they have already killed hundreds of thousands if not more with their arv treatment and are planning to murder more. genocide is the right word because the evidence is known to gallo and montagnier - it has been presented to them numerous times. they cannot claim ignorance when this all goes belly up. and i plan on being there when that happens.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Thanks 'Lightanddarkbalance' for your thoughtful observations.

Perhaps it would be better if I don't reply to the person who imagines he has an expanded mind.

AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Anthony,

Sadly, you refuse to answer real questions about yourself and your plans and only wish to attack others. Your attacks are damaging yet you are obviously proud of what you are doing. Some would call what you are doing terrorism. At the very least it is narcissistic.

Your responsibility is great. Now that you have initiated this action, you, Anthony Brink, are responsible for the consequences. You must prove that what you are doing will help every one that fights Aids Inc. Including me.

Time will tell. I suspect that you overestimate your ability and worth and that, at best, the dissident movement will take many years to heal from your audacious and self-absorbed actions. Pray I am wrong.

LightandDark, You are concerned that David is not coming here and posting a defense. However, look here, look at Mr. Brink's evasion and avoidance of questions! If you are going to convict David by his silence, then you must also convict Mr. Brink by his.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Allen
To be honest, when I read your evasive, non-sequitous responses to my post, 'The compulsive, serial lies of David Crowe', which raises other serious ethical issues as well, I get this real downhearted feeling that the person I'm talking to doesn't have such a tremendously expanded mind after all.
Is it really too much to ask you to address your special mind to the issues I've raised?
Don't come baiting and switching like a used car salesman.
Unless maybe you are one.
AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Right back at you.

I have addressed this issue. I have read all your missives and I have rendered my own judgment. I do not think you have a case to convict David Crowe of being incompetent. David is doing good work regardless of his failings. I think that you and he disagree on tactics, but you are overreacting and behaving like a bull in a China shop.

You have not won a case against AIDS Inc. Yet you act as if you are some superhero flying in to save the day.

At this point you have proven to be far less than perfect as well. I cannot place your approach above his since you have taken this squabble to an unconscionable level.

Additionally, you refuse to even try to assuage anxiety of those of us who are concerned about the future. You refuse to prove that you are doing something that will benefit us, and me, in fighting AIDS Inc.

Look at some of these posts. Not everyone agrees that the Perth Group is the one true answer. We aren't all the same here. However, you seem to think that everyone should come to attention whenever you speak about Perth vs. Duesberg.

Regardless of all your posturing, I suspect that very few people think that stopping the conference, or devastating the RA is an acceptable cost for a little 45 minute talk from you.

The biggest problem is that your tactics are so public, and so divisive and so mean, that I just can't see how your intentions are anything but selfish.

You are also intent on attacking me as a person instead of facing the fact that I am demanding some accountability from you. Can you even talk to someone without name-calling and condescending?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

You should try to give people a reason to do so. It is not clear where all this will get us, so there is no motivation to pay close attention to all the issues you raise. Maybe you should try something like "Please pay attention to this point because this means X and therefore we should respond to it by doing X." Right now it is not clear what people should do or how they should react to what you're saying even if they basically agree with you. What reaction do you desire and why?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Anthony - thanks in return for having the intergrity and good sensibility to point out the glaring core defect haunting and contaminating a movement which seeks to expose the myth of a virus by granting existence to nonexistence. It's like being half pregnant.

I do recognize a type of mental quality at work here which is the opposite of an expansive mind. Rationalization in service to selective issue's without the felt intuitive sense of awareness of interrelationship always ruins things. The power of this reversal of awareness is now making you the problem. The message you bring is not a big issue - it is a rather "little drama - sad and damaging" - The problem is now you - the message is not the issue, the issue is the messenger !

Contracted mind enabled by its attendant selective rationalizing function is always the problem with us humans isn't it. The buddhists correctly recognize it as ignorance. Lawyers and politicans know how to manipulate it well. Realities are built within mentally contracted social programed constructions. There has never been a war without the good rationalizatins of deluded minds justifying it. The Psychopaths merge with their rationalizatios, the schzoids bounce from one side to the other and the culturally normal contracted minds stay well adjusted within the comfortable narrowness of their contracted tunnel vision.

Now I must admit that I try to have an open mind and am wary of my human tendency to rationalize as a tool to protect my little self. I am therefore sensitive to examining my ideas to see whether or not I am contracted or expansive with my understanding. Doing my best to live an examined life I can not but feel I am not ego gaming fixated when I take the position that there is a very real, objective, extremely important, urgent issue of contamination in RA concensus science ( is it a concensus though ? ) and quite possibly RA policy that needs addressing. - NOW !

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Hey lightanddarkbalance
You sound like a friend I haven't met!
Here's a thought for the day, especially for the real big thinking guy:
“Whatever little we have gained, we have gained by agitation, while we have uniformly lost by moderation.” - Daniel O'Connell
AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

A little bit too much drama on this thread.

Whatever is going on with Mr. Brink and RA/Crowe, I'm completely confident that the "dissident movement" will survive it.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Yes, enough brinksmanship...

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Anthony,

you may or may not have a point. But your style is questionable and i for one am not convinced in this manner.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I wasn't singling out Brink. I kind of like his biting style. I was talking about the overall drama in this thread.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

'Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.'
Mao Tse-Tung

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

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 AIDS Myth Exposed you'll see what I mean.
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):
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34558
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34680
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34681
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34682
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34708
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34709
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34770
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34801
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34810
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34811
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...html#post34812
And after you've read these posts, Onnie, you will really need to tighten your seatbelt before reading this one: Greens, 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 Greens.
For some highlights, see Greens excerpts.
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 again!
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.
A hug
A

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Mr. Brink,

I'm wondering, just wondering and for the benefit of the readers here, do you have anything else to offer, other than this one track agenda?

Surely, since you have many past varied and dynamic contributions to dissident thought, certainly you can be doing a whole lot of good in other avenues. Look at the multitude of other threads here and please join in and add to them. Or does this not interest you?

Brian

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

'Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.'
Mao Tse-Tung

Right on Anthony !

Will dissidents every learn ?- Don't be nice be real !

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

It does not interest me at all, Mr Carter.
Thank you, sir.
AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

'Style is but the faintly contemptible vessel in which the bitter liquid is recommended to the world.'
Thornton Wilder
The Bridge of San Luis Rey

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

anthony

your pseudo marxist-leninist ramblings really are way out of date and are not contributing in any way whatsover to build consensus and further this cause.

nothing, but nothing that you have posted is constructive in any way. do you really suffer from such a great deal of attention deficit that you feel compelled to post your all this nonsense? merely being confrontational solves nothing.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Any reason why that is so?

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

My dear compadre and friend and brother, Anthony Brink,

First of all, Anthony, I can't begin to tell you how much love and respect I have for all of the good works and many lives you have undoubtedly saved and helped in your beleaguered country, as well as how much your works have contributed to the dissident movement. I sincerely thank you, and am humbled by your many great accomplishments.

As far as the current situations, Anthony, while I do sympathize with your desire to see a new and improved RA be brought into being, various thoughts go through my mind concerning your current vefforts to bring such changes about.

I have so far read all of what you have posted, and I know that you are not one to make a move without a plan, and at this point your plan seems to be divide and conquer.

You have so far succeeded in dividing, but I fear you have not had such good fortune in conquering, though perhaps eventually you will.

Part of your plan seems to have been with first of all removing David Crowe from office as current president. Perhaps this is because you perceive him to be the central power of RA, but if so, I myself do not believe he is quite the central power of RA that you make him out to be. Even our dear and highly respected President Mbeki, while having very much deserved influence over many at the ANC, certainly had no power over their own consensus beliefs or desires. Mr. Mbekin also had to work within the framework of the emotional and mental capabilities of those he presided over. Even he could not stop beliefs about HIV nor keep AZT and other toxins out of the mouths of his countrymen. Even he had only limited power and influence. Even he had only limited ability to fend off those who sought to bring his influence to an end in favor of their own popular agendas.

While not being a Mbeki, David Crowe does not, at least in the minds of the vast members of our tribe of dissidents, fall so low as to being perceived by our dissident masses as a purveyor of ruthless apartheid who would lie, cheat, steal, imprison, and even murder to retain power and control.

The evidences you have presented of him as a liar could also be construed as simple misunderstandings or human errors that happened while he had done his own personal best in doing what he and many of us dissidents thought was best. The evidences you present of Crowe as a soon to be imprisoned thief, look more like the in-house political squabblings of individuals seeking to gain power and control over the local Canadian Greens party agenda. There is no-one offering any actual evidence of Crowe and company absconding with party funds, only accusations of such.

Therefore, I am having sincere doubts that such an attempt by you to depose him will come to fruition as I do not see David as the type to step down, and I also do not see the current board, nor that of many of the lay members, as having any desire to see him step down. Particularly, as he has more youthful energy and desire to fulfill the position than do the old guard board members. For all I know, he may even come to be re-elected by them as his current term ends.

I think it has become obvious that you also face considerable difficulty in presenting him as unworthy or unable of carrying out his position, particularly as he has done more that was productive for us dissidents in that position in the last couple of years than the old guard had accomplished in 10 years.

Furthermore, it is surely a fact that many of the RA old guard themselves are proponents of Perth's position.

And speaking of Perth's position, I myself can perceive not so much that RA excluded Perth, but that Perth had excluded so much of RA. What I mean is that the old emotionality by the Perth group themselves over Peter Duesberg's failure to embrace their position had brought out in them a great resentment toward RA, and also has been far less than helpful in incorporating Perth or the non-viral hypothesis into a broader, if not predominant role of RA philosophy.

What I am saying, Anthony, is that the estrangement of RA/Perth has not been, and is not currently as one-sided as you, or even they, seem to present it.

And the rhino method failed to work to further incorporate their position back in the 80's, so I fail to see what use repeating such failed methods could produce today. There is a saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. And this is what I see is currently being repeated. Ad nauseum.

What so many currently involved on both sides of this seem to be lacking, and what seems to be impeding them from accomplishing their desired good ends is a basic understanding of human nature and human emotionality of themselves or of others. And this is a common failure of those who have invested their lives in scientific theory and who have devoted themselves to other external issues far removed from themselves and their emotions and their own inherently flawed humanity with its emotional and egoic foibles.

To put it bluntly, many in science, (and other trades as well) have stunted and retarded personal emotional growth. As such, they fail to even understand how they themselves emotionally and egoically function, so quite naturally, they have also failed to understand how others function, and all are left isolated with their frustrations, because they never learned in their elementary years, let alone in their adult years, how to play constructively together with the others in the schoolyard.

And again, those involved in pursuits of higher analytical types of education such as science more than often were notoriously the odd kids who were left out, who did not understand how to "get along" with their peers. Oftentimes, this explains why some went so deep into their books and studies and consumed themselves with logic and went into science instead of trades that required more socializing with others.

End Part 1, continue to next message.....

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Begin Part 2

This too, does not help matters any, because we are often somewhat dealing with the emotionally retarded kids, when dealing with scientists.

That said, even so many of those who are more socialized also are still unknowledgeable or incapable themselves of understanding how they themselves and others function in emotion and mind, and are also incapable of reaching high enough ground to be of much positive influence or persuasion over others.

And this leads us back to the current dilemmas. Anthony, I love you but I see your current methods, while they may benefit you in a courtroom, will cause you nothing but pain here on the playground with your friends. These methods are not conducive to winning minds and hearts. These methods are not building bridges nor expanding our understandings. They are doing the opposite. They are burning bridges in a take-no-prisoners stand. They are reminiscent not of those who stood in the light of true power such as Mandela nor Ghandi, who sought to defend and unite, and stand up for the good and the right, but are instead methods of the apartheid itself that sought to force its will, to divide, to control, even if it had to destroy to do so. But just remember, Anthony, that the force of Apartheid was ultimately destroyed by the inherent weakness that all force is subjected to, while Power, in the form of truth and right and all that was good is what finally won the day and resulted in your and my dear friend, President Mbeki, sitting on the seat of the presidency working to help guide that power yet further to the benefit of all of mankind.

As such, Anthony, I see you, as well as Perth, not standing yet in a place of natural power, but in a place of weakness and force. For every force, there is indeed an equal and opposite force. Power, on the other hand, has no opposite. It simply is what it is.

I see you Anthony as trying to free slaves who do not want to stand up themselves to be free men. RA has not kept Perth out. Perth has kept Perth out of RA. None are oppressed that allow themselves to be oppressed. If Perth has been oppressed, they have also volunteered to allow and keep themselves in that position, even if they themselves are not aware of all of the ways in which they are doing so.

Eleni and Val have also been far less than helpful in moving us all forward. Yet you protect them from this fact like they are children. They have not been open to healing any of the decade plus old rifts. They have also been intolerant and unaccepting and unforgiving. This has not moved them any further and has seriously hindered them, and in so doing hinders us all. They are NOT the innocent victims you portray them to be. They have done much to volunteer for the position due to the less than optimal way intolerant, unforgiving, unhelpful ways in which they themselves have at times operated and dealt with their own dissident peers.

The question therefore is not so simply put as how we can force Perth or Perth's view to be accepted by RA or to be the core message of RA. The question is how can we encourage Perth to finally join with RA as constructive and tolerant members and brothers and sisters and friends in that then and only then can or will they be respected, loved, appreciated by their own dissident peers, and from there clearly heard by all the world.

And what are you doing, Anthony, to pull this together? Your methods look like you learned much from the apartheid bosses of not so many years ago. Those old methods failed them but you think they will benefit you or us or Perth?

Will you continue, Anthony, demand that others admit to their errors while you admit to having none of your own? Will you continue to stand in that place of weakness and forceful willfulness yourself, or will you learn from this failing attempt to force your will and join us instead in also standing in a place of power and of defending highest truths, and furthering such via the well proven most constructive methods such as the importance of acceptance, willingness, tolerance, allowance, patience, love, forgiveness, and freedom for all from oppression, from which high vantage point, you, I, Perth, RA, yes we all together can further the highest truths that they may successfully prevail?

I leave it all up to you because I first of all I and most among the dissidents do love you brother, and I fully believe that you, Anthony Brink, have everything it takes to decide what is right for you.

With all respect and best wishes, and love for you, as well as for Val, Eleni, David, Peter, and all of our dissident tribe,

Michael Geiger

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Very nice.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

thank you michael - as always common sense that unites and not divides is what we need ;)

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Hey, whereistheproof, I'm an anarchist not a communist! And I'm sure Mao would have been surprised to hear he was a Leninist, but anyway I agree he's out of date. Why, nowadays it's the American Way! Maybe I should have quoted Ronald Reagan instead!
The Nicaraguan Contras are 'the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers'.
'A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.'
'Facts are stupid things.'

Or Bill Clinton:
'I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm gonna say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false, and I need to go back to work for the American people.'
'I never inhaled.'

Or George W Bush:
'Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.'
'I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.'
'Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country.'
'Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?
'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.'
'There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.'

Or Arnold Schwarzenegger:
'I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.'
Re California Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia: 'She's either Puerto Rican, or the same thing as Cuban, I mean they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.'
And about Clinton and Lewinsky:'I can look at a chick who's a little out of shape and if she turns me on, I won't hesitate to date her. ... It was always said that he was a fag and that he had no sexual relations.'

You reckon those sharp dudes running your country would have been more quotable?!
Cheers!
AB

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

My dear Michael

Before responding to your generous-hearted email, as ever, I must ask you: From your statement –

‘The evidences you present of Crowe as a soon to be imprisoned thief, look more like the in-house political squabbling of individuals seeking to gain power and control over the local Canadian Greens party agenda. There is no-one offering any actual evidence of Crowe and company absconding with party funds, only accusations of such.’

– would I be correct in concluding that you haven’t carefully examined the extensive, thoroughly particularized, even-handed discussion and debate of Crowe’s misconduct before his ejection from the Alberta Greens executive board and afterwards (the discussion that Crowe’s ‘close personal friend’ running the Greens in Alberta Facebook page obligingly suppressed shortly after I captured it and archived it on my TIG site). I’m talking about reading it closely, as opposed to skimming it impatiently with the not unreasonable assumption that it comprises the usual shabby sort of ‘in-house political squabbling of individuals seeking to gain power and control over the local Canadian Greens party agenda’.

I must ask you this important preliminary question, Michael, because as I read the discussion thread I didn’t come across any ‘accusations of … Crowe and company absconding with party funds’, much less any ‘evidence … of such’.

Consequently I didn’t ‘present Crowe as a soon to be imprisoned thief’.

(His other problems with Canadian criminal law we’ll reach a moment.)

And it’s your incorrect claim that I did ‘present … Crowe as a soon to be imprisoned thief’ that leads me to think you didn’t read the discussion with the attentiveness it warranted.

I was a bit disappointed by this, because you know from all the work I’ve done that everything I write is true to my maxim, ‘Meticulous precision with fact, maximum violence in polemic.’ I’ve learned from my experience in our battlefield of fiercely contested knowledge to be real careful, cognizant always that our enemies lie in wait to capitalize on our smallest slip. What throws some people, however, is that I’m also given to levity for rhetorical piquancy, especially in extremely serious matters, appreciating the risk that in doing so my serious intent might be missed. (I don’t know why I do this, it just comes to me naturally, and I just can’t help it. Maybe because laughing is better than crying.)

Anyway we certainly have to do here with extremely serious matters.

As a seasoned lawyer I must tell you that I was and am satisfied on a reading of the discussion thread that the information provided made out a prima facie case that Crowe has conducted himself criminally.

As unbelievable as it sounds at first blush, since we’ve not had to face something like this before.

The discussion thread that appeared briefly on the Greens in Alberta Facebook page is felicitously archived for all the world to see at Greens, and it tells us:

‘On March 25, 2009 Crowe filed a complaint with Elections Alberta and disclosed a list of possible party donors requiring tax receipts. This information was forwarded to the new executive and the list of names revealed that a number of individuals referenced on Crowe’s list of donors could not confirm the accuracy of the amount of their donation recorded. Some people disputed or denied making a donation, some donations were misrepresented and should have been filed as an election donation, and still other individuals claimed that their donation check was never cashed. The party lawyer, Kurata document each case referenced above.

‘Information transferred to the new executive (the Nov 23, 2008 PDF trial balance) indicates there are two accounts identified as “Donated Goods and Services”. One account shows unexplained or unsupported activity of approximately $14,000 and the latter shows absolutely no activity.

‘Current records in the party’s possession reveal that a significant amount of the documentation of receipts necessary (50% +) for reconciling the 2008 expenditures are missing or have not been made available.

‘Former president Susan Stratton and former leader George Read expended $2546.26 of the Green Party’s funds on legal expenses. There is no accompanying documentation to support the expenditure.

‘Honorarium representing payments of income to non-executive members of the Green Party are not reconcilable. The individuals involved are unresponsive to inquiries, and requests for supporting documentation have gone unanswered.

‘Honorarium representing a payment of income in the amount of $13,440 to George Read should have been reversed prior to the transition of the leadership. This accounting entry and execution, agreed upon by all parties, was not completed by Crowe and there is no supporting information available to reconcile the accounting for the $13,440.’

But it wasn’t all this that I had in mind, Michael, because although it reflects exceedingly poorly on Crowe as chief financial officer of the party, and raises sound general suspicions, it doesn’t disclose any hard evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Crowe’s part.

Not even a search within the discussion thread on the word ‘embezzlement’ yields any solid suggestion of ‘Crowe and company absconding with party funds’. Instead you’ll discover from such a search the allegation that under the direction of ‘Crowe and company’ on the Alberta Greens executive board,

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

‘the party ran 21 candidates in the 2008 election that were not members of the party. In the 2008 election, three executive members of the Alberta Greens were not members of the party. Over .33 cents of every election dollar spent was obtained through two illegal loans, (Check with Elections Alberta). Crowe approved his own loan, subjecting himself to embezzlement allegations, and two former members of the Executive Board dispute Crowe’s claims the executive approved the loans. The loans were covered up in a false document signed by Crowe and Stratton to the accountant Doyle, and then the loans were not reported (another offense) on the elections return. Crowe taped recorded the new auditor who wrote a letter to Elections Alberta complaining the tape-recorded conversation was posted on the internet omitting part of the conversation. Crowe, Burman, andOldershaw like to boast Anglin is incompetent, but due to their leadership the party is now being subjected to a criminal investigation to include fraud, forgery, issuing false documents, embezzlement, and extortion.’

Apropos of the latter, the discussant is referring to the following:

‘I asked Anglin about the incorporation of the party and the necessity to incorporate. He laughed at me and said the issue of incorporation sums up the entire former executive intelligence in one bizarre ironic twist.

‘Anglin claims the issue of not being incorporated was a major concern in December 2008 because legislation specifically required the registration of a corporate entity, before party status could be granted.

‘Anglin says, at this time, the legal questions confronting the Alberta Greens were two fold. If the corporate entity did not exist, (keeping in mind only a corporate entity can apply for status as a political party), how could the party exist? The second question involved the relevance of the corporate entity GAIA. GAIA was the corporate entity on record that had originally applied for party status back in the early 1990’s. The possibility of requesting a “grandfathering” exemption for GAIA was dismissed as an option, because the former executive did not transfer control of GAIA, and Services Alberta’s, the agency that governs incorporation, rules and regulations have been updated. Services Alberta currently mandates that a political party’s name must be exactly the same as its corporate entity.

‘The Alberta Greens membership was given this information at a General Meeting held on January 21, 2009. At this meeting, it was conveyed to the General Membership that a forced de-registration was a real possibility, and that de-registration could be imminent. A special resolution was passed at the January meeting granting the new executive the authority to address the issue of incorporation, and incorporate if possible, and/or convene a special general meeting on short notice should time allow. I read the minutes of the January general meeting to confirm this was accurate.

‘Anglin says that at the February 7, 2009 meeting with Elections Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer, Lorne Gibson, the question of the corporate registration was resolved. All parties agreed that it appeared the Act did not anticipate the dissolution of a corporate entity without first dissolving the political entity. In conclusion, the Act does not provide any direction beyond the initial requirement mandating that an entity incorporate prior to making an application for party registration. While this interpretation clarified Elections Alberta’s responsibility, it did not address any of the organizational concerns relative to legal liabilities and contractual obligations.

‘Anglin told me that legislation spans multiple jurisdictional authorities governed by multiple legislative acts, not limited to “The Business Corporations Act”, “The Companies Act”,” The Partnerships Act”, and “The Societies Act”, to name but a few! Elections Alberta, Anglin said, is primarily concerned with the “Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act”, and they are content to let their concerns stop there.

‘Anglin then showed me the corporate documents confirming that the “Alberta Greens” the Green Party of Alberta Society was incorporated on February 25, 2009.

‘Anglin then produced a document that both shocked and horrified me. Anglin told me that while people such as Lawrence Porter, and other members of the former executive were publically denouncing Anglin about how wrong he is about the necessity to incorporate, some of them must have forgotten that they engaged in the creation of a false document to prove the party was incorporated.

‘Anglin gave me a copy of a document signed by Oldershaw, Read, Stratton, and Crowe dated June 12, 2008. The document was a corporate resolution designed or constructed to prove the Alberta Greens were incorporated according to “The Business Corporations Act”.

‘The statement just above the document signature line states, and I will reprint exactly what I am reading on the document, “Resolution passed by all the directors of the Corporation pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (Alberta) as evidence by their signatures.”

‘After I studied this document I was speechless. Anglin in disgust said, “Can you believe these people?” “They are all over the internet with e-mails and public postings claiming that the party does not need to be incorporated, and all the while they are making this argument as if they are knowledgeable and informed on the subject, when in fact they created and signed this document because it was a requirement to prove they were incorporated.”

‘The document in question boasts compliance pursuant to the Business Corporations Act and appears to be constructed to misrepresent the party’s status as a corporate entity for the purpose of entering into an agreement with the ING Bank.

‘Anglin says there are numerous Legislative Acts that address false documents, forgery, and fraud in addition to the criminal code, however, the Business Corporations Act specifically addresses the issue of false and misleading documents in Sec:251(1) where if a person who makes or assists in making a report, return, notice or other document is found guilty of making

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

an untrue statement of a material fact is subject to a fine of not more than $5000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both.’

And this:

‘Last but not least Anglin provided me with a tape recorded telephone conversation between Jensen and Crowe dated November 12, 2008 at 11:03 PM. The conversation references an earlier conversation that took place at 7:56 AM from Crowe to Jensen.

‘The recording I listened to lasted approximately 20 minutes. I am speechless to comment on what I heard and how Crowe so casually explained away the contents of the phone conversation previously on this Facebook page. The conversation I listen to centered on the topic of extortion and blackmail. I did not hear one word discussing any offers for possible negotiations. I listen to this tape recording three different times.

‘I also listened to a taped recorded executive meeting where Midge Lambert forcible argued with multiple members of the former executive to get Crowe to answer questions about the phone calls. I was struck by how callous some former members handled Lambert`s questions and how easily they carried on after Lambert hung-up on the conference call. The behaviour of the former executive indicates to me that they may have had some previous knowledge of Lambert’s complaint.

‘I read a copy of a prepared draft motion and accompanying affidavit that has not been filed with the Court of the Queen’s Bench. The motion, if filed is going seek civil action against Crowe for an extortion attempt. Anglin says he has two years from the date of the offense to file.’

In regard to which phone call, another Greens supporter stated thus:

‘Having been taken aback by Mr. Crowe's response regarding a possible threatening telephone call last November to party president Ms. Jensen, I have stayed quiet until I could learn for myself the nature of his telephone call. Mr. Crowe, you said that you called Ms. Jensen to try to negotiate. I have spoken with Ms. Jensen. A five minute call at approximately 8:00 a.m. in which you read to her some wild, defamatory statements about Joe Anglin; in which you threatened to take these statements to the Calgary Herald for them to "research; " in which you gave Ms. Jensen and Joe Anglin 24 hours to withdraw their legal action against Ms. Stratton and George Read in order to avoid your taking that information to the Herald; and finally, which you terminated by hanging up on Ms. Jensen. Please, Mr. Crowe. How is this "negotiation?" Ms. Jensen, btw, immediately filed a report with the Calgary Police and later that day returned the call to you, acting on advice she received. I have heard that call. Her call to you lasted about 20 minutes, and was not terminated by her hanging up on you. However, it does corroborate the threats you made to her in the morning. In your response regarding this issue, you stated something to the effect that you knew your attempts at "negotiation" would be used against you. In the business, they probably have several terms for the kind of spin you are attempting here. "Passive aggressive" comes to mind. The other thing that comes to mind is that if you are willing to play with the truth so blatantly concerning your telephone call, what other truths are you stretching?’

Then there’s this:

‘Regarding de-registration of the party, the documents I have reviewed have resulted in some very disturbing matters coming to light. Anglin claims the party was unofficially de-registered to avoid public embarrassment. The official version is that the party was deregistered because it could not comply with the financial reporting provisions required by Sec 42(1) of the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act.

‘Anglin says two factors weighed heavily in the executive’s decision to acquiesce to de-registration; the new executive had lost all confidence that Crowe would comply with the agreement and hand-over the financial information so that the party could file an annual financial return. Failure to file an annual return is cause for forcible de-registration. And the resignation of MNP as the auditor resulted in MNP making a statement that they would never consider auditing the Alberta Greens without first completing a full forensic audit of the present and past financial filings. A full forensic, Anglin said, audit would cost six figures in accounting fees. MNP can confirm this broad assumption.

‘MNP’s requirement mandating a forensic audit is directly attributed to several other disclosures that discredited the party’s financial record keeping. I was shown documents that indicate that some of these disclosures also subject the party to possible criminal charges.

‘On February 7, 2009 in a meeting with Elections Alberta, Lorne Gibson’s, the Chief Electoral Officer, legal counsel informed Anglin that two loans, one made by Stratton and the other by Crowe, on February 8, 2008 violated the Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act and are cause to recommend prosecution. The loans raised additional concerns after close examination of the loan documents revealed that Crowe approved his own loan by authorizing the contract with altered signatures. Anglin claims this in itself is not illegal but it raises serious questions about motive. Crowe also approved Stratton’s loan.

‘I read a letter where the new executive was advised by its counsel that repayment authorized and effected by the present executive would condone the earlier act of the Party borrowing from Crow and Stratton. Kurata further advised that the repayment of the outstanding debt to Crowe and Stratton, when it is ascertained, is a matter which the Chief Electoral Officer must deliberate upon, and the determination of repayment is a matter wholly beyond the discretion of the current Party executive.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

‘Statements provided by two former executive members confirm that there was no approval process conducted to approve the loans and neither member was aware that 7% interest was being paid out to Crowe and Stratton. I was specifically asked not to disclose the names of the former two executives.

‘Anglin says the loans created even further complications for the party when they became the object of a preliminary criminal investigation. I was shown documents that revealed that the loans were not disclosed on the 2008 election’s return and that signed “Statements of Disclosure” by Susan Stratton and David Crowe; addressed to the Auditor Michael L. Doyle, raise significant questions regarding the accuracy of the financial information being presented for audit.’

And this:

‘There is a criminal investigation underway and the Alberta Greens, particularly the former executive, are at the center of the investigation and the best you can contribute to the topic is to question the origins of my support for the Green Party?

‘I read so much on this Facebook page. I read all your attacks on Anglin, and I was somewhat sympathetic to all your posts, but when I sat down with Anglin and started to question him, he did not hesitate to answer my questions. He followed it up with documented evidence. What more can I say.

‘As a suggestion you might want to tone down your patronizing just a little. Forged documents, fraud, embezzlement, attempted extortion, illegal loans, and the party is de-registered, can anyone paint an uglier picture of what went on?’

And this too:

‘The Green Party ran a campaign with the use of illegal loans. The executive covered up the loans with a false document and then failed to report the loans on the election’s return, falsifying the return. Each offense is a punishable offense, and at least one is a criminal offense. This doesn’t even address the issue of an attempted extortion.

‘If the party is found guilty, the Green Party would be liable because it ran a fraudulent campaign.’

Now these are all serious criminal matters, Michael. Which of course Crowe might be able to explain away. But hasn’t: an exculpatory page on his personal website goes to the dispute over whether he duly handed over party financial documents or not.

I haven’t dealt here with allegations of Crowe’s tortious misconduct on the Greens board giving rise to exposure for civil damages; his alleged contempt of court in his cynical determination to frustrate the new executive; nor his evident routine unscrupulous manipulativeness in the now deregistered party and his contempt for the party’s constitution and the rules of fair play – all of which you’ll find detailed in the discussion thread, archived on my site as I said at Greens. After reading about it, you might also say Wow, to use David Rasnick’s big word. Your hair might even stand on end. But it’s only the criminal allegations against Crowe that are relevant for now, not the evidence of his repugnant, abusive, dishonest misconduct in other respects, since it’s my mention of the former business that’s been most offensive to the sort of decent people among us who can hardly imagine such a thing. About which general appalling misconduct a former party member wrote me privately:

‘Apparently we were hitting too close to the truth. I see that the administrator of the Greens in Alberta group, a close personal friend of Mr. Crowe, has pulled the entire discussion off the site. It's a pity. I had alerted a prominent Alberta political blogger about it, but I fear it was removed before he got in to read it all. But I was able to read and note some amazing parallels between your conflict and the Green Party conflict with Mr. Crowe. And I know from personal experience that he uses threats and bullying tactics privately, and then remanufactures himself to be the poor, innocent victim publicly. And in both cases, he finds support from calm, reasoning people, and also one or two “pit bulls” to attack his detractors. He has yet to address or apologize for any of his wrongdoings, but people have been hurt by them. It's a shame that he has an arena to play in. He is destructive in the long term.’

It’s the pending criminal investigation that I think ought to be of pressing concern to the RA board, not the other stuff. The right thing it seems to me would be for Crowe to step down, or for the board to ask him to step down, just as then President Mbeki ‘stepped down’ then Vice President Zuma pending the judicial determination of the corruption charges against him. Imagine the field day the press is otherwise going to have over this in November, with all of us getting spattered too. Apart from my political-scientific interest in the saga I’ve a direct personal interest, because Crowe claims to be president of the entire AIDS dissident community, which includes me, even though nobody ever asked me whether I wanted him or not; but I do allow that over here in the distant colonies I might be laboring under a complete misconception about this, and that the allegations of multiple criminal acts committed by Crowe are of no concern to the RA board whatsoever. The board is after all dominated by Americans.

This is just my preliminary point in limine as we lawyers say, the first question I wanted to ask you.

More later, I promise!

But before I go, let me confirm that indeed I’m ‘not one to make a move without a plan’!

You’re quite right about that, Michael!

The time has come; and the way Crowe has behaved as RA board president he’s inadvertently done us a tremendous service in helping it come.

Sincere best wishes my very dear brother.

A

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

anthony

i hear you are a lawyer. in which case i wonder what makes you think i am american. i am not.

secondly, i wonder what makes you think i support bush, clinton or any of those guys.

is that what you do? think in black and white only? so if people disagree with you you stick them in a box?

reading your posts only demonstrates one thing: you have no clue about anarchy, nor communism.

what you do have are a lot of accusations, and the ability to divide.

are you proud of that? because thats not anarchy either. thats just being stupid.

i hear you haven't won't many court cases. i am not surprised. your rhetoric is not only out of date, its typical for some one who makes a lot of noise, but then when called to make it happen, utterly fails. and divides.

good luck with your own little private war. one of those wars that are not of benefit to any one other than you own big overblown ego.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Hello Anthony,

While you might think I had not read the posts, I did more than read it, as I
have just done a bit of investigating on this myself.

Yesterday, in my own investigation, I also contacted and asked a few questions
of the most likely person to know the facts, the party secretary. Below, are the
responses to questions that I asked the Greens party secretary, so I could get a
more direct understanding of whether or not there was actually anything to it.
She too confirmed my own suspicions.

I also called an independent reporter, who had written many items about the
local Alberta Greens party David was affiliated with, who said "There's nothing
to it. Not even worth covering. It's just the nastiness of local politics".

It seems to me at least that there is currently not even sufficient evidence
that David's accusers on Facebook are actually even real people. But yet there
is evidence to strongly suspect that "Paul Last" and "Mary Martin" are fake
personalities created specifically for furthering personal/political agendas.
And even if they are real, they are quite evidently part of Anglin's own group.

Facebook is a bit like the wild west, where anyone, even you, can create even
fake personalities and attempt to use them as means to their own ends. We
dissidents recently experienced this as Clark Baker can tell you about, when
some fake accounts were made by those currently accused in Celia Farbers libel
case, who then proceeded to use their fake personalities to post on dissident
blogs while pretending to be dissidents. At this point, we are well on guard
for such.


Therefore, Anthony, after reading Ms. Oldershaw's responses to me just below,
unless you also think Ms. Oldershaw, as well as the local reporter, are part of
some conspiracy, have you got any stronger evidence of any real or actual or
verifiable wrongdoings by David Crowe? The current selection evidently seems to
leave much to be desired.

Otherwise, I fear we are pissing in the wind when perhaps there is more
constructive business that we could attend to.

Read Ms. Oldershaw's brief responses in the next message, and see what you think.

Yours, Michael Geiger

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

From: m.oldershaw@...
Subject: Re: The Greens, Mr. David Crowe, and Facebook
Date: August 10, 2009 9:25:58 AM PDT
To: mgeiger@...


THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION

I have known David Crowe for many years. He is a completely honest and
honourable person. He is a faithful "Green" individual and would never knowingly
commit any mischief or misdeeds of any kind. The executives and members of the
Alberta Greens are victims of a carefully orchestrated coup of the party by one
individual Joe Anglin and his small group of followers. This group of rural
landowners was motivated by a temporary success in confronting the Alberta
government over land ownership concerns and perceived that control of a
political party would give them a platform with which to attack the government
in the future. Joe Anglin has a reputation for ruthless bullying and uses
harassment by litigation to achieve his ends. He succeeded temporarily because
of the weakness of the Alberta Greens constitution and because of his threats of
litigation. He has failed to achieve long term control of the party because he
does not have the fundamental intelligence or the technical skills to understand
the provincial legislation, financial management or computer systems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I see that one of the individuals who had posted such on Facebook was a Mary
Martin, whose Facebook account has been deleted. In your own opinion, was this a
real person or do you think this Mary Martin was an account under a false name?

I don't think that the "Mary Martin" account has in fact been deleted. That
account came up when I searched today. We have all been working to track down
Martin and Last but without success. They are not in any list that we can find.
It seems very likely that this is not a real person but I cannot be sure.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) There are many comments by a gentleman named Paul Last, who claimed to be a
concerned but neutral supporter of the Greens. Again, I am not sure if this is a
real person, or if it is possibly again someone with their own agenda. Has a Mr.
Paul Last had a membership or had he made any donations in the last years, say
between 2004 and 2008?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, we have no records whatever of the existence of Paul Last but Grant
Neufeld who is the organizer for the "Greens in Alberta" Facebook page sent me
an email as follows:

..................................

"Paul Last" has apparently been around for a while. I found the following when
cleaning out the group wall:
Paul Last wrote at 8:32pm on September 15th, 2008
I don't have a credit card to buy a membership on line. Can I come to the AGM
and buy my membership there?

.............................................

This would seem to indicate that he is a person but it could still be fake. It
could be be a test of the ability to buy memberships at the door, by a member of
the Anglin group, this was essential for the Anglin group to take over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) I see that Paul Last has only two facebook 'friends', one of which is Edwin
Erickson. As an outsider, he looks to me to be one of the three people behind
the 2008 hostile takeover. Is that correct?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Edwin Erickson is one of the people involved with the takeover, and there
were actually four people: Joe Anglin, Edwin Erickson, Connie Jensen, and Midge
Lambert.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-

4) The other 'friend' of Paul Last seems to be a woman whose only two friends
are Paul Last and Edwin Erickson. So, this leaves a mystery to me, as it seems
to be two lies. Particularly as Paul Last claimed to be neutral and claimed to
be a long time supporter. Would this, in your interpretation, seem to be the
case?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can find no record anywhere of Paul, Mary or Peggy. I strongly suspect that
they are fake, but I cannot be sure.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) Had Elections Alberta ever contacted David Crowe about the two loans that
were made, and had they ever mentioned anything about criminal charges or
investigations upon Mr. Crowe?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The loans were an understandable mistake which would normally have been picked
up by the auditor and corrected before the report went to Elections Alberta. The
Anglin group never got this far. I understand that there is now some
communication between Elections Alberta and Dave and Susan Stratton concerning
the loans. I do not know the details. This was a mistake, not a crime. Mistakes
happen all the time with party finances. I do not expect Elections Alberta to be
upset about it especially in view of Dave's long record of excellent compliance
with Elections Alberta's reporting processes, and the fact that there was no
benefit to Dave, Susan or the party from the transactions

----------------------------------------------------------------------

6) It seems to me that some questions posted on Facebook are over these loans.
Is it correct that loans to political parties are normal, due to the short time
to raise money during Canadian elections which occur whenever the governing
party calls them, not at fixed intervals, and that last only 30 days?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Continued to the next message....

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Parties get loans all the time. I knew all about the loans and accepted it as
normal. The problem is that apparently the rules for Alberta are different than
the rules for Canada and the rule is ambiguously stated in the Provincial Act.
It is not serious since no benefit occurred to anyone and it would normally have
been corrected by the auditor by repaying the loans before the report went to
Elections Alberta.

---------------------------------------------------------

7) I understand that David Crowe did also collect ballots. What type of
envelopes were the ballots in? Were they in single or double envelopes? The
reason I ask, is due to the question of membership checks that I assume would
have been therein. I would assume that only paid members could vote, so I would
further venture that a two envelope method was used, one for the ballot and one
for checks to cover membership charges. Is that correct?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. I did them myself. Voting packages that were mailed out as opposed to
emailed out contained two envelopes, one blank inner envelope for the ballot and
one addressed to the PO Box The member was told to write their name on the outer
envelope.

Where people were sent a voting package by email, they were told to use two
envelopes when sending it back.

-------------------------------------------------------------

8) If such a dual envelope system was used, did the envelopes contain
identifying information on both the inner and outer envelopes, or just on the
outer envelope with checks, or just the inner with the ballot?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't see the returned envelopes. I know what people should have done but I
also know that it is hard to get people to do things right. They were not
supposed to write anything at all on the inner envelopes. With David's
permission I can send you the email that he wrote giving all the instructions
for sending in the ballots and which I included in the letters going out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Were the ballot envelopes opened by David Crowe?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know. Dave picked up the mail. You can believe whatever he tells you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Would it have been necessary, or would it not have been incredibly stupid
for David Crowe to voluntarily hand over such incriminating information to his
own antagonists?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You have not explained what you mean by incriminating information. Is someone
saying that he opened the inner envelope? Paul Last says something about marking
the envelopes. You are right, Dave is not stupid, why would he send something
incriminating. And, if there was anything incriminating, why would the Anglin
group burn them. I suggest you ask Dave if he wrote anything on the outer
envelope and, if he did, what it was.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

11) In your own opinion, after your own years of experience and personal
knowledge of David Crowe, and your intimate knowledge of the recent developments
with the Greens party, that we are not privy to nor personally knowledgeable of,
could you state whether you believe our own organization should consider being
more guarded and on alert as to the integrity and intentions of Mr. David Crowe?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave is one of the most honest and trustworthy people I know. I am proud to be
his friend.

The Anglin group forcibly took control of the party. They then found that it
took a great deal of hard work and expertise to run it and they had few
supporters willing to work. They didn't even know what a database was and were
too arrogant to ask for help with the finances. They have angrily de-registered
the party and are now clutching at straws trying to blame others for their
stupidity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I and many others would be very grateful for any assistance or enlightenment on
this confusing issue and development that you might be able to offer.

Sincerely Yours,
Michael Geiger

-------------------------------------------------------------

You're welcome. If I can assist in any other way please contact me again.

--------------------------------------------------------------

THE ABOVE ARE MY PERSONAL OPINIONS

Madeleine Oldershaw

Calgary, Alberta

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

Anthony had responded via email to that with the following:

RE: My dear compadre and friend and brother, Anthony Brink,

Dear Michael

How surprised I was by your latest mail!

1. The basis of my impression that you ‘had not read the posts’ attentively was your statement about ‘The evidences you present of Crowe as a soon to be imprisoned thief … There is no-one offering any actual evidence of Crowe and company absconding with party funds, only accusations of such.’

This bore no relation to the charges made in the serious, detailed discussion to which I referred, and suggested an inattentive skim read, in which you missed the particulars and got the wrong end of the stick!

Which, Michael, looking at it again, you must agree!

2. You asked me to ‘Read Ms. Oldershaw's brief responses below, and see what you think.’

I did, and I must tell you, Michael, that I think very little of them, very little of them indeed.

And good heavens, who’ll disagree?!

The bias of Crowe’s adoring praise-singer and her abhorrence of Anglin jumps off the page.

She’s certainly not in ‘Anglin’s own group’, that’s for sure; whereas she’s most avowedly in Crowe’s.

‘Ms. Oldershaw's brief responses’ are so manifestly partisan that I found them preposterous!

And they don’t even touch sides with substance of the charges.

3. You ask if I have ‘any stronger evidence of any real or actual or verifiable wrongdoings by David Crowe’.

Documents supporting the alleged party incorporation fraud, the alleged illegal loans, and the alleged false statement to the party auditor concealing them, are posted for your careful perusal at:

http://www.tig.org.za/Greens_loans.pdf

http://www.tig.org.za/Greens_misrepr...n_to_Doyle.pdf

www.tig.org.za/Greens_incorporation.pdf

You’ll appreciate in the light of these documents that the president of RA has some considerable explaining to do.

4. Concerning the suggestion that Mary Martin and Paul Last don’t exist except as invented internet personae peddling malicious misinformation, did you really get that impression from the tenor of the discussion thread (www.tig.org.za/greens.htm)? I sure didn’t.

Whether the names are nom de plumes I don’t know, but I discerned no mischief of the sort Celia was subject to.

5. The opinion of a local journalist apparently unacquainted with the allegations and supporting documents obviously has no cogency for me, and I’m mystified that you thought otherwise.

6. I find no evidence of any ‘conspiracy’ between Ms Oldershaw and the reporter; and can’t understand why you suggested I might have!

All the best
A

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

I hereby respond to Anthony's last message, as I just posted above, with the following...

Re: My dear compadre and friend and brother, Anthony Brink,

Thanks for looking at it Anthony. You said: "Documents supporting the alleged party incorporation fraud, the alleged illegal loans, and the alleged false
statement to the party auditor concealing them..."

The key word you use here seems to be "alleged".

Many allege many things. Many more than have made alleged charges upon David have alleged that you and Mr. Mbeki are the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths. More in your country currently allege you guilty of such than sing praises to you. Does "alleging" such make it true?

You yourself are "alleged" to be guilty of far greater crimes and by far more
people than such as are alleged of David Crowe.

Therefore,

1) Should David Crowe be barred from his position at RA until such crimes and
charges are investigated and he is found innocent by a Canadian court?

2) Should you be barred from practicing law until the alleged crimes and charges
are investigated and found innocent by a court in South Africa?

If the answer to either one of the above questions be a yes, then the answer to
the other must also clearly be a yes. If David is to be held accountable as
guilty until proved innocent because of charges that are merely alleged, then
you too must be held to the same standards. And if the answer be yes, then
kindly surrender your license to the practice of law and surrender to your
courts until you are cleared, and we will push for the removal of Mr. Crowe
until he is cleared. While what you would mete out upon others would surely be your own due as well.

If the answer be no, then I call upon you to immediately cease and desist from promoting individuals be barred from their own positions of authority merely due to their "alleged" crimes. Otherwise I must assume you have no good faith nor good purpose in mind, or perhaps are or have become at this point an unwitting psychopath who can no longer control yourself. Is this the case Anthony? Would a loaded gun put to your own head even bring you back to more rational thinking, or would even that fail?

If the above be the case, then I myself, and surely most others will therefore
be forced, even against our own current desires, to call out for your own
current banishment from RA due to what I would therefore take as a lack of any good faith from you in furthering any of our common interests, and to keep you out of it all at least until you have humbled yourself, apologized to all of us, proven yourself well again and healthy in mind again, and until you have made suitable reparations for any damages caused to all of our mutual interests. Perhaps a plea of general insanity to all involved would get you off the hook lighter, but I would not necessarily count on it.

Or perhaps this was what you desired in the first place, and if so, you are
certainly free to start your own dissident group with Perth as your centerpiece. Many surely will follow. Some will join both your own group and RA. It may even be ultimately of benefit to all. Although you perhaps will find that so many who would or could also be of great value to you may not be willing to join an effort that was founded upon such methods, though I could be mistaken. Most humans unfortunately have little to no integrity themselves, and many are brutes and many millions have followed countless brute dictators to their own deaths before overthrowing them in favor of more constructive methods.

You know, Anthony, I used to post much at the South African online site of the Mail & Guardian, and perhaps you have read some of it, under the nom de plume of "LINCOLN", in the spirit of our great American president Abraham Lincoln, in complete defense of yourself, Manto, and Mbeki, and Perth and Duesberg as well as on all of our other mutual concerns. Many thousands went to read the thread as it became one of the most read threads on their site, and it had good influence on so many more who you yourself sought to reach.

As such, now, and again in the spirit of Abraham Lincoln, I encourage you to
think yet deeper about this division that you seem to be avidly seeking, as I
truly believe we can yet accomplish much more if we were but fully united than we can if divided, in ways you have not yet even considered.

What I mean by that is that both Duesberg and Perth are both true, but only to a certain level. There are higher truths yet, way above and beyond both Duesberg and Perth and Rath and the various intellectual and physical and nutritional levels. These are the least of what affects health and well being, not the most. These truths about what is truly beneath and the cause of the cause of what weakens human beings to the point of sickness, these truths about the weakening of humans by believing in their disempowering and self creating fears are of far far greater importance. Mankind is just beginning to discover and awaken to this, the interplay of consciousness and belief on the physical realms of being. These higher truths have to do with levels of human consciousness and holding negativity or positivity, and having positive or destructive disempowering beliefs themselves, that are far more important to what creates in our lives, as
well as even determine the choices an individual can possibly make about AZT or about a belief in HIV or in their ability to be well or likelihood of being ill, than whether or not the agent HIV exists or if they should take AZT or if they need to beware of Perths oxidation or if they need Rath's vitamins. This has to do not with such physical aspects of life, but with the nonphysical and invisible that supports life or destroys it that lies withing and just beneath the physical level and perspectives. On certain levels of thinking and understanding and awareness, it is a complete waste of time to look toward Duesberg or Perth or Rath, as they all become nonissues and quite beside the point in and of themselves.

And should THIS INFORMATION not be presented at RA2009 or even by Perth or you or RA or in any issue of health or illness? An even higher and truer truth than either or any of them?

Yet, there will be no hour nor speaker devoted to it. It will not even be
glanced at my friend, because most, including probably even your own self, are not yet ready or willing to grow beyond their own current beliefs to see the biggest truest picture of our mutual and common human realities. But that does not stop me from sharing it with all who do want to hear it or who may be encouraged to see an even higher truth. And it does not cause me to reject them.

Therefore I urge you to consider all of this much more fully, and consider how
much you could benefit RA, as well as how coming more together with RA may benefit your own ultimate cause than dividing our tribes hearts and minds and ultimately weakening all of us.

Example: Just today, a rant by JP Moore of the AIDSTRUTH brigade, just said the following:

"It is always good to hammer the AIDS denialists flat when they stick their
heads out from under the rocks. Having a paper officially retracted is even more embarrassing than having it rejected in the first place (at least it would be for a real scientist who behaves according to the accepted professional
standards). Finally, the saga of the Duesberg paper is not yet over. There are still issues that are now being acted on by the scientific community."

Whether you know it or not, this is a threat. And not just directed at Peter,
but also at Perth and yourself. Do you expect a new group will face less? Do you not think we could all find greater benefit from being united as we face what may be even greater challenges in the future? Do not think it impossible that there could be calls for you and Mbeki and Duesberg before a world court to answer for the deaths of hundreds of thousands? A new group will still be faced with great challenges, just as South Africans still are even post-apartheid.

As I stated about the difference between Power Versus Force, that all positions taken in a place of FORCE will face exactly what is on its own level. The way to avoid and circumvent such is to move to a higher level, not a position of force but of power. A level of power is not and does not need force. A position of Force crumbles before a position of power. The more aware we can be of the most powerful positions, and the more we can stay in a place of power, and the more united we can be to fend off the attacks they currently and will yet have planned, the stronger and more successful we all will ultimately be.

You and Perth may not need RA at present, but RA and many of its followers could surely benefit from you and Perth remaining and drawing closer. Surely you have seen Star Wars. Did it not give you something to think about? Do you think it was based on nothing is the reason why it impacted millions to the core of their being? Beware of the dark side of human nature. Especially your own. It can take any of us over and most would not recognize that it had until too late, wherein we will face that dark side of our own selves in the next endeavor and in the next opponent.

However, if I am unable to get you to discuss such things as greater unification further, and if such independence be the course you are set upon or perhaps even destined to take and lead, then, so be it, and I will wish both it and wish you well. If you think RA could not be improved and made even more effective by your or Perth's being a greater part of it, then do it my friend. Separation it will be. Do it. But before you do, think, and think hard and then please think yet some more. As I said before, I know you, Anthony, have everything it takes to decide what is right for you.



Sincerely Yours, my brother, very sincerely yours,
Michael

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

And I "hereby" make the following restrictions on this thread:

1. If you do not have additional EVIDENCE to supply in this matter,

DO NOT POST ANY ADDITIONAL MESSAGES IN THIS THREAD!!

I seriously question how interested the majority of our readers are in hearing all of these LONG-WINDED opinions from all sorts of dissidents who have NO DIRECT ROLE in these issues which have been raised by Anthony Brink. Mr. Brink raised these allegations SEVERAL DAYS ago, and, while many of you have seen fit to post messages decrying Anthony's allegations, the most substantive "evidence" offered in any message defending Crowe has been the e-mail from Geiger to Oldershaw. (Like Brink, I question how substantive this "evidence" is.)

Furthermore, Crowe has said he is preparing a response to these charges, and he is more than welcome to post such responses here himself. Thus, I think it's best to wait to hear from the horse's mouth...kapish??

Brink-and anyone else for that matter-are still welcome to supply additional EVIDENCE no matter WHAT "side" they may be supporting, and, in the interest of fairness, Brink can respond to this latest vacuous message from Geiger, I suppose, with or without having to supply evidence. However, after Brink's reply to Geiger's latest, anyone who wishes to comment either way on these issues...

***MUST CITE EVIDENCE!!***

2. Such evidence must be in the form of an active, functional link on the web or a copy and paste of all documentation and NOT "I heard this...or I heard that...."-type of HEARSAY statements. If someone is to be quoted, specifics MUST be stated: who said it, where was it said, when, etc....

3. Messages posted to this thread which do not fit the restrictions listed above in 1 and 2

WILL BE DELETED!

Everyone's anticipated cooperation with this request is, as always, greatly appreciated....

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

The following is from Anthony Brink:

Thanks for your long and thoughtful email, Michael.

I’ve printed it out and read it through, and as I did so many thoughts came to mind.

But please bear with me: I can’t sit down to reply immediately because I have another call on my time that must take first place.

Speak soon

A

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

In the interest of fairly addressing issues raised by Michael Geiger prior to my imposing restrictions on this thread, Mary Martin comments below on the suggestion by Michael Geiger and former Alberta Greens secretary Madeleine Oldershaw that she doesn’t really exist.

For all it's worth, Mary's e-mail account does seem to reflect the correct time zone for Alberta, Canada.

Here, now, is my e-mail chain to and from Mary Martin:

From: Rod Knoll <knoll>
To: .ca
Cc: arbrink
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 1:48:51 PM
Subject: David Crowe

(CC to Anthony Brink)

Hello Mary,

I am co-administrator of the AIDSMythExposed.com web site where you recently posted a message concerning a David Crowe. He is CFO, I believe, of the Alberta, Canada Green party, and he is also current president of The Rethinking AIDS Group.

You have been accused of being a "fake" by someone.

Please review the following e-mail and offer any documentation you can for your claims and who you are in relation to the issues that are surrounding Crowe and the Green party.

Feel free to post any documentation you have on our web site at:

http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/ma...king-aids.html

Or in a private reply to me at this e-mail address.

Thank you!

Rod Knoll

Re: David Crowe
Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:53 AM
From: "Mary Martin" <.ca>Add sender to Contacts
To: <knoll>
cc: "anthony brink" <arbrink>

Mr. Knoll,

Thank you for your email. I am not exactly sure what kind of documentation might verify for you that I am not a fake. Even more to the point, I am not particularly concerned whether you think I'm a fake, or not. My posting on the Rethinking AIDS Group was to open your readers to a new facet in the life of Mr. Crowe, which I had become aware of through a friend who was a member of the Alberta Greens, and who was particularly repulsed by the situation that has grown there in the past year. Once I became aware of Mr. Crowe's actions in the Green Party, and then upon finding such startling similarities in his behaviour within the Rethinking AIDS organization, I watched with fascination, and felt that it might be useful to your readers if they knew that Mr. Crowe seems to have similar controversies in other areas of his life which, in the case of the Green Party in Alberta have contributed to the destruction of the party. I hope your organization can avoid a similar fate.

My only comments regarding Madeleine Oldershaw are that she has not been the secretary of the green party for some months now. On the facebook group, (at least before the administrator "scrubbed" it) she has been particularly virulent towards the new executive of the party. The questions put to her are particularly interesting...they read almost as though she wrote them herself so that she could provide the information she wanted to provide. At any rate, they certainly were not unbiased questions. I suggest that if you want a balanced look at the situation, you contact the Alberta green party leader, Joe Anglin. I also note that, true to form, she and Mr. Crowe (and obviously Grant Neufeld, who I believe is the administrator of that facebook group) would rather research and discredit the message bearers, than offer defence against the message.

I see from a reply sent to you by Anthony Brink that he has provided you with some documentation that might help you to see that the information to which I alerted your readers is, indeed, not fake. All I can offer in addition to that is that my only direct contact with the principals in this melodrama showed me that Mr. Crowe had been untruthful with me when I asked him about a threatening telephone call he made to the party president. That, and a threatening email from Mr. Crowe to me immediately upon my first presence in the Greens in Alberta Facebook group. So you can understand that I am not interested in showing you, and through you Mr. Crowe, my personal documentation.

Beyond that, I have been an observer, and have tried to provide different perspectives to both groups. I do not particularly care whether you and your readers accept this information. You are all adults. You can decide for yourself. All I was trying to do was open up the possibility that there seems to be more (or less, depending on how you look at it) to Mr. Crowe than he would have you think.

I trust this is sufficient for your needs.
Mary Martin.

Re: Rethinking "Rethinking AIDS"
 

You know folks,

Two words come to my mind here.

http://www.smalltown.com/image/00/24...5942270362.jpg

And Jesus Christmas, the smell is coming through my computer screen!