The ever gushing lies of David Crowe

 

Crowe writes (on 29 November 2009):

Nobody spoke on [the Perth Group’s] behalf at RA 2009 and I am generally opposed to having speakers speak "on behalf" of someone else.

Both of these statements are demonstrable lies.

As usual.

Crowe knows perfectly well that the Perth Group are the originators of the seminal missing virus critique of the HIV theory of AIDS.

Even though he knows this perfectly well, he rejected the Perth Group’s request in mid-2006 that he post a summary and history of their work on the RA website to confirm it on the record.

The Perth Group made this request of him in view of de Harven’s plagiarism of their science and his repeated public presentation of a corrupted, uncredited version of it.

The likely reason Crowe rejected their request to post a summary and history of their work on the RA website, even though he well knew it to be factually impeccable, is that de Harven, then RA president, had already asserted to him privately, as he was later to do publicly, that the Perth Group had ‘swiftly appropriated’ their historical observation that there is no evidence for the existence of HIV from Stefan Lanka, which is to say the Perth Group had plagiarized Lanka’s scientific work and insight.

In fact, as mentioned, Crowe knew then as he knows now that de Harven’s foul allegation that the Perth Group plagiarized Stefan Lanka’s scientific work and insight was completely false.

But Crowe didn’t care that it was false.

He didn’t care that a member of his board should publicly say such a revolting, gravely serious thing.

The reason he didn’t care, evidently, is because Crowe is untroubled by the uttering of revolting, gravely serious lies.

Much more important to him than the truth, and setting straight the scientific historical record that de Harven had fouled, was keeping de Harven onside as a political ally with an eye on his own petty ambitions.

After rejecting Papadopulos-Eleopulos’s request that I present the Perth Group’s science at the conference, as I’d done in Russia the previous year, Crowe and Rasnick justified their decision on the basis that they wanted the leading expert in each field and not a proxy (not even one nominated by and enjoying the full confidence of the absent speaker).

But in truth, as is evident from the following, Crowe wasn’t actually ‘opposed to having speakers speak “on behalf” of someone else’ at the conference.

After rejecting the Perth Group’s authorized nominee to present their science at the conference, Crowe asked de Harven to drop his scheduled talk on so-called murine and human retroviruses and instead to present the very core of the Perth Group’s critique of the HIV theory of AIDS – the fact that ‘HIV’ has never been isolated by purification – under the title he gave him: ‘Questioning the existence of HIV’.

Crowe was not ‘opposed’, in fact he was quite happy to have de Harven speak ‘“on [the Perth Group’s] behalf”’ on this critical subject, the very core of the Perth Group’s critique of the HIV theory of AIDS – not only without their authority, but also aware of their strenuous objections to de Harven doing so, as a plagiarist of their seminal scientific work and insights, and as a risible scientific incompetent to boot.

 

Crowe writes further:

When I filled in for Chris Black at RA 2009 (who could not attend at the last minute) I used my own data, talked on a slightly different subject, from a different perspective, and did not claim to be speaking on Chris Black's behalf.

As mentioned, the reason advanced for rejecting the Perth Group’s nomination of me to present their science was that only the leading expert in each field would do.

My friend Chris Black has no relevant experience of AIDS law whatsoever, and he’s admitted as much to me. 

Yet Crowe picked him as the world’s leading expert on AIDS law.

I have been involved in six major litigations involving AIDS law, both civil and criminal, including in the Constitutional Court.

I was not approached to talk on any aspect of AIDS law.

The reason for this is that Crowe decided that my vocal criticism of his sabotage of the historic Parenzee case evidently disqualified me as an expert on AIDS law.

As emerged from his conduct in wrecking the Parenzee case, Crowe evidently decided that he was the second most knowledgeable expert on AIDS law after Chris and this is why he ‘filled in’ for him on the subject.

While we’re at it: Peter Duesberg’s knowledge of AIDS in South Africa is not a patch on mine, yet he was called upon to talk to the situation in my country.

Similarly, I have been researching ARV drugs, with a focus on AZT and nevirapine, in depth for the past thirteen years and have written extensively about them, including several books.

By comparison, David Rasnick hasn’t got a clue.

Yet Rasnick chose himself to speak on ARV drugs after deciding that he was the AIDS dissident movement’s leading expert on the subject.

Do you see how these buggers just manufacture arbitrary ex post facto decision-criteria and justifications with no regard for the truth?

 

It is also wrong to say that the conference was "controlled" by RA. We suggested topics to speakers but did not control what they said in any way.

It’s manifestly obvious that in truth the conference was completely controlled by RA, and particularly by  Crowe and Rasnick who in practical terms run it.

Crowe first made sure that there would be no examination of Peter’s claim that ‘HIV’ has most certainly been proved to exist, because he didn’t want to see Peter walking out as he habitually does very unscientifically whenever the embarrassing subject is raised.

Second, Rasnick pertinently selected the topics to keep the isolation question far off the agenda.

Third, the two of them contrived to ensure that the Perth Group’s science wasn’t presented at the conference, only a mangled, corrupted, plagiarized version, and one easy to discredit.

They  ‘“controlled”’ the conference alright: they did everything possible to protect Peter from being seriously challenged on his bogus claim that ‘HIV’ exists – like a toothless vampire.

Crowe’s main objective was to ensure that no real science was presented to spoil things for Peter, and this is why he held a cutesy, unchallenging, tame, safe little AIDS conference without any balls. Like a businessman’s Rotary Club meeting, everyone grinning.

AB