Roberts's second response to Claus’s Rethinking the letter to Science.
2 December 2009
Dear Anthony, you write on your RA web page re the letter sent to the Science journal last December.
"The Roberts-Crowe Letter to Science has indeed caused damage, but not to Gallo or Science. It has served to redirect focus from the real scientific issues to peripheral and largely irrelevant questions of editorial practices in Gallo’s lab, as well as made the Signatories the laughing stock of the scientific establishment"
What nonsense! The Science editors simply hid, refusing to respond both to the first copy to go to them and to the second sent in by Dr. Andy Maniotis . The letter principally pointed out that HIV was not isolated, despite this Science paper claiming in its title that it was isolated. It further pointed out that there was no experiment in this paper designed to prove any virus pathogenic, let alone the cause of AIDS.
There is nothing on your website that contradicts this. Indeed the Perth Group strongly maintains the same.
I suspect that you cannot admit that RA might have supported something decent, so you have to attack this letter. You forget to mention that the RA Board, while supporting the letter, voted unanimously against RA sending it to Science, as the letter was strictly a scientific protest, conceived independently of RA . An independent approach was seen as appropriate. It unanimously rejected an alternative proposal put up by David Crowe - nor was David allowed to alter the letter.
You also do not mention while belittling my work that I strongly supported in Eleni's request that you be allowed to speak on her behalf at the RA conference and was attacked for supporting this. At that time you thanked me.
I am thus extremely disappointed and saddened by your attack on my work.
PS - would you please post this as my response