THE PERTH GROUP RESPOND TO DAVID CROWE'S ABYSMAL IGNORANCE CONCERNING SEMEN AND AIDS AGAIN

 

On 12 January 2010 Rethinking AIDS president David Crowe wrote to Sabine Kalitzkus, copying me in:

One of the first things that I did when I received some claims about semen and HIV/AIDS from the Perth Group related to "The AIDS Trap" was to obtain and read some of the original papers. I then discovered that these papers did not support their thesis. In fact, I don't know of a single paper that shows that semen alone is associated with AIDS. In fact, I don't know how you could have such evidence because while semen and AIDS are clearly often associated, there are not associated alone, there are usually other practices such as drug use, douching or, as you've pointed out, fisting. Clearly the drug-AIDS hypothesis has more evidence than the semen-AIDS hypothesis and is more plausible.

Besides, most of the evidence provided to me was of an association between semen and HIV seropositivity, not AIDS, which implies that the Perth Group believe that HIV seropositivity is a reliable marker of the development of AIDS.

But, given that you refuse to do any research I don't really see what we have to talk about.

 

The Perth Group responded in a note to Kalitzkus on the 14th:

Obviously Crowe does not understand or will not accept the role of semen in AIDS. Or deliberately misinterprets the PG view.

How many times do we have to tell him the drug theory of AIDS is ours? It is a subset of the oxidative theory. As is semen. It does not belong to Peter D although Peter to his credit has come up with much supportive evidence.

In regard to HIV seropositivity: It is incredible that someone who claims to have conducted intensive research on AIDS still does not know that a positive antibody test is predictive of having or developing AIDS. This is a well established, undeniable fact. What Crowe cannot see is that this does not mean the antibodies are "HIV" and hence "HIV" is the cause of AIDS. Non-specific tests can be very useful in medical practice. Just think of taking a person’s temperature. This is why Peter D’s haemophilia and military experiments may well backfire on Peter and hence all of us (because conveniently the HIV experts lump us all together).

Crowe states: "Clearly the drug-AIDS hypothesis has more evidence than the semen-AIDS hypothesis and is more plausible".

How can Crowe explain the overwhelming epidemiological evidence, to which we have repeatedly drawn his attention, that AIDS in gay men is directly related to passive anal intercourse with ejaculation?

Crowe states: "Besides, most of the evidence provided to me was of an association between semen and HIV seropositivity, not AIDS, which implies that the Perth Group believe that HIV seropositivity is a reliable marker of the development of AIDS".

Is Crowe saying he doesn’t accept "that HIV seropositivity is a reliable marker of the development of AIDS"? If so, he does not agree with Duesberg.