Brink's posts censored by Celia Farber at 'The Truth Barrier'

Lies and distortions lead to despair. 

Celia Farber

Welcome to The Truth Barrier

Anthony Brink February 8, 2010 at 8:42 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The Perth Group’s charges against Crowe concerning his fatal interference in the Parenzee case cannot be read at as claimed in this article. They can be read at

The principal indictment comprises an email exchange between Crowe and the Perth Group, with the latter’s comment, posted at:

Crowe responded a few weeks later, but so dismally that the Perth Group considered his reply beneath further comment. It is posted at

Further evidence of Crowe’s furtive involvement in the case and his deceitful attempt to cover his tracks is canvassed by the Perth Group in their statement dissociating from his ‘Rethinking AIDS’ organization on account of ‘irreconcilable scientific differences’ — ‘ethical differences’ too, they would soon add:

A detailed critical commentary on ‘Does Parenzee’s Defense Team Agree with The Anti-RA Brigade About Parenzee Trial Blame?’ will follow. In the meanwhile, readers are urged to read the materials I’ve cited to form a balanced, informed judgement on the reason for the failure of the Parenzee case, Crowe’s pivotal role in it, and his persistent refusal to acknowledge it — since he thinks, like Kyle Shields does, and Kevin Borick too, that it’s a brilliant idea to change a defence strategy fundamentally halfway through a trial, and to lead expert evidence to contradict the expert evidence already led; it’s a brilliant idea to lead contradictory, mutually destructive expert evidence in a case.

Anthony Brink
Advocate of the High Court of South Africa, and former Magistrate of the District, Regional and Civil Courts


Anthony Brink February 8, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dear Celia

Firstly, as a person with a school leaver’s certificate would you kindly inform this seasoned High Court trial lawyer and former Magistrate of the Civil Court, and your readership too, what is ‘libelous and defamatory’ under US defamation law about the contents of my RA page that I mentioned?

Is a single material fact stated there demonstrably untrue?

Is a single considered opinion stated there wide of the privilege the First Amendment affords to impeach the scandalous conduct of public figures?

Would you be so kind as to edify us with your learned legal opinion in this matter? (With the benefit of your school leaver’s certificate.)

Secondly, contrary to your repeated claims (‘links to libelous and defamatory website’) none of my links to Crowe’s email exchange with the Perth Group, Crowe’s comment on it, and the Perth Group’s statement dissociating from his RA organization are linked to my RA page.

If you look again, you’ll see in the URL but not /RA.htm after it.

And my TIG page has no visible link to my RA page.

In the premises, would you kindly restore my links to the Perth Group’s two documents just cited and to Crowe’s comment on their indictment of his interference in the Parenzee case?

And would you kindly restore my link to my RA page as well?

All this will enable your readers to decide for themselves whether the ‘Perth Group (and their supporters)’ are justified in charging Crowe with having wrecked the historic opportunity presented by the Parenzee case to show that ‘HIV’ has never been shown to exist, and thereby win Andre Parenzee his acquittal.


(PS: Unless you want to stand accused of behaving like one of Stalin’s OGPU censors.)


Anthony Brink February 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dear Kyle


Since I’m not permitted to give you the link to it (this amounts to the ‘promotion of [a] libelous and defamatory website’), you’ll have to find it with Google.

Likewise, have you read ‘Rethinking AIDS and the Perth Group – irreconcilable differences’? You’ll have to Google it for the same reason.

After you have read these documents carefully, please tell us whether you still consider that ‘David was never in loop regarding final decision making , the decision was entirely Kevin’s on how he was going to try the case.’

Thanks a lot


Anthony Brink February 8, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Below is an excerpt from the Perth Group’s September 2009 statement dissociating from Crowe’s RA organization, where it deals with the real evidence they uncovered, subsequent to their email exchange published in April 2009, of the extent of Crowe’s direct, active interference in the Parenzee case, and his attempts to conceal it.

It may be relevant to mention here that in his second telephone call to me to discuss the case before it began, Borick asked me to draw up his questions for his examination in chief of the Perth Group. Appalled that he was still so at sea on the technical foundations of the defence he was going to be presenting, I refused and referred him to key PG papers and interviews, urging him to study them closely to get on top of their science. His failure to have properly acquainted himself with the Perth Group’s missing virus science gave Crowe his opening to interfere, fatally in the result :

The Perth Group:

Since we sent “The Andre Parenzee Case, David Crowe and RA” to many of you, a few more facts have come to light which further clarify what happened during this hearing.

In his response to “The Andre Parenzee Case, David Crowe and RA” Crowe wrote “I never wrote cross-examination text for him [Kevin Borick]”. Obviously he is not aware that his trusted “intermediary” and collaborator, Trudy Pfeiffer (Andre’s stepsister), sent us Gallo’s commentary (instead of submitting sworn affidavits, the “HIV” experts wrote commentaries) with Crowe’s questions for Gallo’s cross-examination inserted within. Crowe’s questions for Gallo represent the only direct evidence we have for Crowe writing questions for Kevin Borick to use in the cross-examination of the prosecution experts. However, it is obvious he was writing question for everybody, right from the very beginning. Professor David Cooper was the first prosecution expert to be cross-examined. All one has to do to know where Borick’s questions came from is to know a little about our scientific publications and read Cooper’s cross-examination. It is characterised by questions which are mostly inconsequential, irrelevant, unconnected with the agreed defence strategy and harmful, even to a “HIV exists but not cause AIDS” strategy. (In fact, the only questions which originated from us for the cross-examination of the “HIV” experts were taken from our affidavit).

Crowe wrote “Regarding Trudy, apart from chit chat, especially related to her pregnancy, we communicated mostly regarding transfers of funds. I believe I also asked her for Andre’s address in jail so I could write to him. I don’t remember ever discussing details of the trial with her, certainly not strategy or expert witnesses. In fact, I was informed that it was “the family” siding with Val and Eleni that persuaded Borick that no other experts for the defence would be called. It is true that Borick was considering some of the experts who I had identified. But clearly I had no clout with the family as they refused to accept this idea”.

As far as we (the PG) knew, the Parenzee family (Andre, his mother, and his wife) trusted us. Crowe went behind our backs all the way. He says he “talked to Borick” only twice. If he did not talk to Trudy, who acted as Borick’s assistant, how did he communicate so much, that is, the identity, CVs and commentaries of the other experts to Borick? How did he advise the defence on strategy? How was he able to “provide information” to Borick? Who were the people involved in this case apart from Borick, Trudy and us to whom he was talking? Is he protecting Trudy or himself? Does Trudy know things about Crowe that we don’t, and that he does not want anybody else to know?

After Judge Sulan found against us we bombarded Borick with telephone calls trying to convince him that despite:
(a) his superficial cross-examination of the “HIV” experts;
(b) his failure to use the many questions we provided for cross-examination purposes based on the prosecution experts’ pre-hearing, written reports;
nonetheless, by using our affidavit for questioning, the prosecution experts themselves had provided him with ample information to support the “fresh evidence” for a retrial he had introduced on the very first day of the hearing and which he could use for an appeal to the Board of Criminal Appeal. Namely:
(1) “Firstly that viruses are proven to exist by a procedure virologists refer to as virus isolation. The presently available evidence does not prove a virus known as HIV has been isolated”, that is, purified.

During the hearing the prosecution experts admitted that to prove the existence of a retrovirus the particles must be purified. [...]

Imagine our reaction when one day, out of the blue, we read in the Australian press that in the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Parenzee defence admitted the two witnesses they used in the hearing before Judge Sulan “were not experts”. These two witnesses “take a very fixed stance: it is the virus has never been isolated and never been proven to exist”, which, implicitly, is wrong. (Note the new evidence (reason) on the basis of which the defence asked for a retrial was: “firstly, that viruses are proven to exhibit [exist] by a procedure virology refers to as virus isolation. The presently available evidence does not prove a virus known as HIV has been isolated”).

The defence also accepted that their two witnesses lacked objectivity: “And the Perth Group gave a lot of evidence about that. It took up quite a lot of time. Their evidence has been rejected because in part, they lacked objectivity because they didn’t explain to the court Padian’s explanations.” In fact we analysed Padian’s scientific data in detail and the “HIV” experts agreed with our analysis and conclusions. [...]

We were never sent the written submission to the Court of Criminal Appeal. However, reading Borick’s outline to the Court we were more sorry than angry with him. How was it possible for such an “an experienced, no-nonsense defence lawyer”, as Crowe calls him, to make such a submission which would obviously fail? What made him do it? Who made him? We came across the answer in an email exchange between Andrew Maniotis and David Crowe.

Find my CV attached.
I would be willing to be interviewed remotely, or, if necessary, would love to go to Adelaide on my own dime. Give me time to make arrangements, and it would help to know when this might happen. If you look at my CV, you will notice I have updated it with info regarding test-kit patents I have procured in recent years. I feel most comfortable discussing testing, as I have been through the process several times for my own test kits, including the recently published most sensitive RILA assay (Rapid Infectivity and Lysis Assay) that I sent to Gallo recently, with of course no response. It is viral lytic and chromatin assay.
Anyway, any way I can help, David.

Thanks, this is great. I’m currently helping Kevin write some of his arguments for the appeal request. Hopefully there are no problems with permission to appeal. I believe he’s requesting that the judges authorise a commission which would then pay for our side to send witnesses etc. Feel like a free trip to Australia. I will forward this bio to Kevin and keep it on file for future reference.
Thanks and have a great weekend.
David” (emphasis ours).

At the time of Eleni’s second day of cross-examination, two journalists, including a reporter for Australia’s national daily newspaper, The Australian, told Eleni she had “scared” the prosecution. That may or not be true but judging from a posting by Michael Geiger it appears we did scare some dissidents: “This was not just Crowe, it was many of us who even interacted with Crowe, in a flurry of nonstop desperate emails and messages all marked as being of dire importance to convey to the court… There were 100 times more strategies and comments then were being fed to Borick that were being thrown at David and discussed all over the net, including at Harvey’s site and Liversidges site, with David being urged by dozens to get their own words to Borick. If any of those 100s of desperate words and strategies ever got to Borick, I have no clue”.

Why this wilful rush to interfere in the Parenzee case behind our backs? Since we put “HIV” on trial, obviously Harvey and Liversidge, “the Guardian of Science” or whatever he calls himself, did not rush to help us. In fact Liversidge celebrated Sulan’s decision and claimed that “HIV” was found to exist even legally. (Interestingly, the only website Crowe could find to post his comments on Sulan’s finding was Liversidge’s).

(1) Anybody who is aware that:
(a) Borick let us, and everybody else involved in the hearing, know he would introduce, at Crowe’s advice, Peter as his star witness. Yet in all our debates with Crowe regarding his interference in the case, he never mentioned Peter. To the contrary, he did his best to avoid mentioning Peter and talked non-stop about his witness with great “status”, de Harven. This means that he was fully aware that by recommending Peter as his expert witness, especially after our evidence-in-chief and cross-examination, he could do nothing but harm the case;
(b) Crowe interfered only when he realised the hearing was going well;
(c) Crowe interfered behind our backs;
will have no choice but to conclude whatever reasons he had for interfering, helping the Perth Group, the dissident movement, Borick, the Parenzee family or even his trusted “intermediary” Trudy, was not one of them.

The Directors of the RA Board are backing Crowe in his interference in the Parenzee case. The question is, are they protecting him or are they protecting themselves? Does Crowe know something which we do not, and RA does not want anybody else to know?

Why did so many dissidents and especially RA go against us, the dissident movement, Borick and the Parenzee family? We do not know. So far, only Andrew Maniotis has had the courage to state his reason. “But I felt sure that if anyone could make the case for Parenzee and our cause under the difficult circumstances of a case of “criminal transmission”, it would be Eleni and Val. On the other hand, I also was aware that if they won a criminalisation case, it would have been a coup against all of the AIDS shills and promoters. To be honest, I didn’t think they would LOSE, and was jealous of the extreme nature of the case, and that they were to be the ones that finally ended “HIV”!”


Anthony Brink February 9, 2010 at 4:46 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

In their statement dissociating from the Rethinking AIDS organization, circulated to prominent AIDS dissidents on 18 September 2009, the Perth Group discussed, inter alia, the real evidence delivered to them that Crowe had directed Borick’s unsuccessful cross-examination of Gallo and other prosecution witnesses by actually writing out the questions.

The Perth Group also cited an email exchange between Crowe and Maniotis, in which Crowe openly stated that he was ‘helping’ Borick formulate his grounds of appeal (so ineptly, and at so odds with the Perth Group’s missing virus science, that the appeal predictably failed).

By dissembling that they are ‘alleged quotations from unattributed Perth Group document’, well knowing that I quoted from the Perth Group’s dissociation statement precisely, and that there is no question about either the authenticity of the source or the faithfulness of the quotation, the ‘ED … removed’ it, thus making it impossible for readers of this blog to review the hard evidence advanced by the Perth Group disconfirming the case made in her article that Crowe did not fatally interfere in the Parenzee case as the Perth Group charge.


Anthony Brink February 9, 2010 at 9:59 am

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

In my last post that you completely suppressed, I never quoted from any document by the Perth Group.

It follows that your claim that I did — ‘[alleged quotations from unattributed Perth Group document removed - ED]' — is a lie.

Have you been drinking?


Anthony Brink February 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

‘Brink’s arguments’ concerning Crowe’s culpability for wrecking the Parenzee case are actually the Perth Group’s arguments founded on the facts they adduce in their ‘Perth Group Response To David Crowe Re The Parenzee Hearing’ and their ‘Rethinking AIDS and the Perth Group – irreconcilable differences’ documents, which they emailed prominent AIDS dissident activists in April and September 2009 respectively. Both can be found with Google.




From: Anthony Brink
Sent: 11 February 2010 04:42 PM
To: Celia Farber
Importance: High


I typed a careful comment into your reopened blog today, spent all day polishing it, and then when I hit ‘Submit’  got a ‘Sorry we’re closed for comments’ message.

Ordinarily, such an important subject would be debated for many days, even weeks, in the comments section of the blog post, and not shut down after two days, then opened briefly for a third day to slip the blogger’s own comment in plus a friendly comment to paint PG dissidents as essentially childish people, then quickly closed again before anyone replies.

My contribution is serious, as I hope you will appreciate.

Will you post it?




I too would like to 'forge a real truce' -- if this would make possible an open, frank discussion of the crisis in the AIDS dissident movement, and, crucially, the reasons for it from our radically different perspectives.

I propose a premium on relentless, uncompromising honesty in examining matters that are painful to us, and even hitherto taboo.

What do you say?



You say you have only just learned of the Perth Group's dissociation from your Rethinking AIDS group. How can this be?!

By way of a covering email sent to their entire list of prominent dissidents, including you, the Perth Group published a dissociation statement, enumerating their reasons in fine detail, under the title "'Rethinking AIDS and the Perth Group – irreconcilable differences"   The Perth Group   September 18th 2009'. How could you not have read it?!

Following a detailed review and analysis of our problems and fundamental differences, the Perth Group accepted Celia's eminently sensible suggestion in all the circumstances that we 'divorce', and announced their final break with RA.

The president of your organization David Crowe, however, refused to accept the fact of the 'divorce'; and when the Perth Group very reasonably requested him to read out a one-line statement at your RA conference in November announcing their dissociation from RA 'due to irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences', so there wouldn't be any confusion in the minds of the attendees, he declined to do so. (The email exchange is online.)

This is why, quite incredibly as a senior active member of the RA board, you didn't know until today of the Perth Group's dissociation from your organization many months ago on account of 'irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences'.

For some reason, best known to himself, David Crowe didn't want you or the other conference attendees to know about this. This is possibly because the Perth Group's dissociation statement canvassed, among other things, their recent discovery of David Crowe's questions written out for Kevin Borick SC to ask Gallo in cross-examination, which David Crowe had annotated on a copy of the expert evidence summary that Gallo filed before the hearing. And this is after David Crowe had denied to the Perth Group having written out the questions. You can read this denial with your own unbelieving eyes at:

Of course it's all very sad, as you say, and everyone loves to wring their hands together and say how very sad it is, because indeed everyone's always wringing their hands together and saying how very sad it is, since it’s always sad when families break up, and we all like to think of ourselves as a big family; but in my view the intelligent, responsible thing to do after drying our eyes is sit up smartly and ask the hard question: how and why did it happen that the universally acknowledged scientific leaders of our movement -- who've attacked the 'HIV' theory of AIDS from the beginning, before anyone else, most radically, most comprehensively and, as the Parenzee case revealed, unanswerably -- dissociated themselves from your organization, whose original incarnation in 1991 their principal scientist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos co-founded and even lent its name: 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis'?

The enquiry into our enormous problems and their causes may excavate some unpleasant discoveries, but ours is not a suburban book club gathering where smiling all the time keeps it working, it's a struggle to advance in the most effective manner possible the truth we've discovered about an enormous medical mistake and rotten political construct causing tremendous harm.

The process will necessarily entail the graceful retirement of those who come off bested in the debates.

It goes without saying that anyone who is shown to have acted in a dishonest, grossly inept and harmful manner will be among the first to leave the field. Since obviously we can't have anyone dishonest, grossly inept and harmful to our work anywhere near the public face of our movement. This includes me, if I am discovered upon a review of the evidence to be a liar, a self-serving manipulator, grossly inept and harmful to our goal of imploding the HIV theory of AIDS and the leviathan empire built on it.




Celia Farber responded:

You wanted to destroy and you succeeded. You wanted people to feel absolutely awful about themselves and others they might have thought highly of or even loved before, and you did. Now you want a comment, another comment, on my website, which I have now suspended out of emotional exhaustion and no donations and simply no way to carry on.  I presume you will make no apologies and no concessions, and knowing you, you'll raise the hounds of hell over the outrage of my banning your comment and then THAT will be the boring-ass zero importance thing everybody has to chew mud about for the next 10 years. ... Screw the thread.

[Etc (hysterically).]