AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog
August 30, 2016, 11:01:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Attention all first-time visitors: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER OR JOIN THIS FORUM IN ORDER TO READ ALL CONTENT THAT IS POSTED HERE. Please ignore all links asking you to login or register and click on THIS LINK for important information.

"We have to fight science with science. And, unlike the opposition, we have to be 100% scientifically accurate with every single word we write if we want to be believed. Being right is only 3% of the answer and the remaining 97% is politics. But without the 3% the race doesn't start...."

(e-mail from the Perth Group to fellow dissidents, 3 December, 2008)
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
 on: September 14, 2010, 03:56:01 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
There are affidavits from this current case which provide more insights into Crowe's behavior. Go to

And scroll down to (or search for) the text that reads "Crowe has a go at blackmail, with lies, to extort the withdrawal of litigation against him..."

 on: July 26, 2010, 06:59:35 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
The Perth Group have issued their latest salvo, and it is a significant blow to RA/Duesberg and all the other factions of the dissident movement.

Go to:


 on: July 08, 2010, 11:15:00 AM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
You may have heard that, on the heels of their wildly successful (NOT!) seaside conference in November, 2009 in Peter Duesberg's backyard, the clowns at Rethinking AIDS held yet another dissident "conference" on 16-18 July, 2010 in Vienna, Austria, and it was timed purportedly in an effort to "counter" the orthodox AIDS Conference that took place there.

I am reminded of a popular definition for the word insanity:

"Repeating the same steps and expecting a different outcome."

The conference in 2009 got no major press or media coverage, or David Crowe certainly would have crowed about it. Of course, hindsight has also shown that no significant progress for the dissident cause was achieved as a result of that event. In addition, the 2009 event in Oakland "stretched (RA) to" its "financial limits", according to Crowe himself.

So far, the outcome after this latest conference seems to be the same as that garnered by the previous conference. Through their short-sighted planning, the event's organizers have pretty much guaranteed a fizzle similar to the one last year's conference received...

For important insights into the science that was discussed at the Vienna conference, please see: THIS COMPREHENSIVE ARTICLE. Also, Anthony Brink has written "open letters to RA board/group member Christian Fiala on science and politics and his dissident conference in Vienna, July 2010". Go to:

And scroll down to (or search for) the text that begins "Brink’s open letters to RA board/group member Christian Fiala..."

 on: May 18, 2010, 02:04:18 AM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
Anthony Brink of TIG has made available transcripts of the Perth Group's evidence in the Parenzee case, which Crowe refused to buy at their request with the money Jim Wolfe gave him specifically to support them.

Please note the following corrections to errors in the transcripts which the Perth Group pointed out in their email exchange with Crowe following his fatal interference in the case:

"At the end of the evidence given by the “HIV” experts, the DPP noted that there were many mistakes in the transcripts and asked for permission to correct them. We were never asked to correct them, and judging from the EPE evidence quoted by the DPP and the Judge, it appears neither has anybody else. Mistakes appear to be especially frequent in EPE’s evidence, so much so that the meaning is lost or seems to appear to be the opposite to what was intended. For example (three of the significant mistakes are underlined):

“A. I’m not interested in what she [Padian] says. I’m not interested in her data [EPE testified it was only Padian’s data, not her interpretation, that interested her]. And her evidence does not prove heterosexual transmission, no matter how you take it. It is not what she says in AIDSTruth. It is not what she says in published scientific work, and for published scientific work let me tell you in her prospective studies she has over 170, or 173 I think, or five, individuals, men who are positive and their negative partners, and women who are positive and their negative partners. In the average, they live up to 60 years, and even at the end of the study, when the study started, the one I think, only 33% of people who are using condoms. And at the end of the study, 25% who were still not using consistently condoms, and no-one, no-one of these couples become positive. How can I say that the Padian paper proves heterosexual transmission? How she can say that her studies prove heterosexual transmission, more importantly?” Among the many mistakes, the most significant are: There should be no not in the second and fifth sentences. And 60 should read 6."

Also, there is new evidence recently made public which shows David Crowe's interference in the Parenzee trial. Go to TIG's "RA" page and scroll down the page until the paragraph that starts:

"Here’s the ‘cross-examination text’ that Crowe falsely denied having written"

We suggest that you read everything in that paragraph.

In addition, we recommend that you read everything at the following link:

There is a new document on Crowe's interference in the Parenzee case at the link above.

The transcripts are AT THIS LINK.



 on: April 17, 2010, 09:31:07 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
 This message's contents have been transferred to the above message (CLICK HERE)

 on: April 16, 2010, 02:48:24 AM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
First and foremost: It needs to be emphasized that Peter Duesberg HAD to have known the truth about so-called "HIV" by sometime circa *1989* AT THE LATEST! In 2006, the Perth Group wrote a reply to the Harper's article written by long-time Duesberg sycophant (or is it PSYCOPATH??) Celia Farber. In their reply to Farber's Harper's article, the Perth Group revealed an interesting detail about the history of the dissident movement. They wrote that the original solo paper by Eleni P-E on oxidation and AIDS (the first such paper ever published on that topic, as indexed by PubMed/Medline):

"...was eventually published in Medical Hypotheses in 1988.2  In the same year the paper was sent to Peter Duesberg.  In a paper29 in which Peter Duesberg accepted that the "hallmark" of AIDS "is a defect in T-cells" and that the existence of "HIV" has been proven, he put forward a number of arguments against the "HIV" hypothesis of AIDS.  He did not give an alternative explanation for AIDS.  In 1989 paper Peter Duesberg wrote:  "What Are the Causes of AIDS? I propose that AIDS is not a contagious syndrome caused by one conventional virus or microbe…Since AIDS is defined by new combinations of conventional diseases, it may be caused by new combinations of conventional pathogenic factors.  The habitual administration of factor VIII or blood transfusions or of drugs, chronic promiscuous male homosexual activity that is associated with drugs, numerous acute parasitic infections, and chronic malnutrition, ?each for an average of 8 years?are factors that appear to provide biochemically more tangible and plausible basis for AIDS than an idle retrovirus".30  

In a 1990 paper he wrote "The risk-AIDS hypothesis suggest that AIDS is caused primarily by non-infectious agents.  These include psychoactive drugs, over-medication  with antibiotics and above all AZT, a chain terminator of DNA synthesis administered to treat HIV infection since 1987".31"

In other words, it wasn't until Duesberg was sent the 1988 Medical Hypotheses paper by Eleni P-E that he started claiming (as she did in 1988) that nitrite inhalants, psychoactive drugs and "chronic promiscuous male homosexual activity...appear to provide biochemically more tangible and plausible basis for AIDS". All the while, of course, Duesberg conveniently (more likely purposefully) deleted all mention of the isolation problems with so-called "HIV" that Eleni detailed in HER 1988 paper, and he also interestingly failed to clarify the "chronic promiscuous male homosexual activity" as exposure to *SPERM* which Eleni discussed in great analytical detail in her 1988 paper.

Again, it is fairly apparent that Duesberg KNEW THE TRUTH about "HIV" as far back as 1988, yet he continues to this day to make his short-sighted and thoroughly debunked assertions about HIV's existence and it's role as a "latent, passenger virus"! Just think about all the undeniable harm Duesberg and his debunked hypothesis have done in almost three DECADES!!

In what is now a familiar pattern with her, diehard Duesberg dittohead Celia Farber, writing on 14 April 2010 in yet another blog post which has since been deleted, attempted to gain sympathy for Peter Duesberg by revealing that, apparently since November of 2009, Duesberg has been "under investigation" by the University of California at Berkeley for alleged, potential "misconduct" surrounding a paper he and fellow "HIV is a passenger virus" theorists submitted to the Journal Medical Hypotheses. Duesberg et al.'s paper was subsequently withdrawn, ostensibly because “prominent AIDS researchers” had contacted the Journal's publisher Elsevier and demanded the paper’s withdrawal, purportedly under the pretext that the paper ‘could potentially be damaging to global public health.’

Trying to drum up support for himself, Duesberg wrote on a third-party blog on 12th April: "Yes, the allegations are that 'the ideas (expressed in the now withdrawn Medical Hypotheses paper) are false, … un-supported by evidence, and dangerous'" and then he belly-ached that he had "not received evidence from UCB or elsewhere to support these allegations." This is a blatant LIE. Duesberg had INDEED received evidence which supports the notion that his ideas expressed in his withdrawn Medical Hypotheses paper are "unsupported by evidence", but such evidence was presented to him BY A FELLOW DISSIDENT.

In this analysis, which Duesberg ACKNOWLEDGED he's seen, a Perth Group supporter had pointed up the defects of Duesberg et al.'s criticism of the Chigwedere et al paper. Duesberg circulated this rebuttal nominally drawn by a third party. However, as Anthony Brink pointed out months ago,  this rebuttal seems clearly co-written by discredited Rethinking AIDS Grand poobah and eternal dipshit David Crowe: "it's marked all over with his characteristically vapid style of verbose argumentation, his favorite limp turns of phrase, his anodyne rhetorical tricks and generally his fingerprint stupidity and dishonesty". Jensen responded by asking Duesberg some questions which, as usual went unanswered. Duesberg, the eternal hypocrite and CHICKEN SHIT, seems to have a habit of developing hearing problems whenever asked hard questions. Instead of addressing the issues that Jensen raised, Duesberg challenged Jensen to write his own critique of the Chigwedere et al. paper, and Jensen obliged here.

Suffice it to say, Duesberg possesses a profound level of chutzpah. For years, he has hypocritically exhibited precisely the same behavior in his dealings with (or lack thereof) the Perth Group that he is constantly lamenting with respect to the AIDS industry's dealings (or lack thereof) with him. In 2009, Duesberg's partisans in the Rethinking AIDS group, the two dipshit Davids- Dipshit David #1: RA Grand poobah David Crowe, and Dipshit David #2: Rasnick, one of Duesberg's co-authors of the withdrawn paper- both conspired to keep the issue of the lack of proof of "HIV" off the agenda for their "RA 2009" conference which proved to be a huge FLOP. Any literate, astute AIDS dissident with half a brain in his or her head knows that the lack of proof of purification of "HIV" is the central issue facing dissidents, and it's the Achilles heel of the AIDS industry.

It's high time that hypocrite and chicken shit Duesberg either "man-up", stop lying and ducking the issue of "HIV's" non-isolation, or retire from the dissident movement, his tail forever between his legs for repeatedly refusing to face facts about his stance on this crucial issue.

Farber and other diehard Duesberg cultists who are angry at the Perth Group for disassociating from the Rethinking AIDS group fail to realize that Duesberg has no one but himself to blame for this civil war that now exists between the two main factions of the AIDS dissident movement. The "virus challenge" originally issued by Continuum Magazine and the Perth Group in the mid 1990's was NEVER meant to be directed at Peter Duesberg. No one was forcing HIM to step forward and claim the reward for the missing virus. However, in an apparent and woefully inadequate effort to defend his life's work in the failed field of retrovirology, it was DUESBERG HIMSELF who purposefully CHOSE to submit a claim, thereby compelling the Perth Group to engage in a debate with HIM on the topic of the purported "isolation" of "HIV". However, obviously the true targets of the Continuum "virus challenge" campaign were orthodox "HIV" researchers like Gallo, Montagnier, Fauci, et al and NOT Duesberg. Only Duesberg knows his real motivations for trying to claim the "missing virus" reward. In doing so, Duesberg was either incredibly STUPID or he WANTED to divide the dissident movement.

If it was the latter, Duesberg certainly got his wish...

Continue to next message below for information on Duesberg's friend, conservative homophobe and Loch Ness Monster believer Henry Bauer (YAY! Just what the dissident movement needs- another conservative who hates homosexuals!):

 on: April 07, 2010, 09:02:18 AM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger

I am sorry that you were annoyed by your experiences on the old forum. One of the many facts which most of my dissident critics fail to acknowledge is that I DID INDEED have to endure input and, before I sacked all other moderators in the very last month that I had control of the forum, I also had to endure contradictory actions from the other moderators. In addition, of course, some of the other MEMBERS were constantly vocal about how they thought the forum should be, as if they possess the insight and in-depth knowledge of the dissident movement that I have. Another thing that many of my fellow dissidents who are constantly criticizing me fail to realize is that perhaps it's remotely possible that I simply do not want them to continue being public advocates for the cause. It never seems to occur to them that I find their posts so dismally void of intellectual rigor that I sometimes actually LAUGH when they say idiotic things like they "wouldn't be caught dead in (my) forum (this site)..."!

What a RELIEF!!

For this reason, I am really TIRED of venues which allow any Tom, Dick or Harry with an internet connection and a browsing history of 5 or 6 hours of reviewing dissident materials to state things as though they know what's best for all of AIDS dissidentdom.

As for the "team members" of the hijacked forum: first, I think that's a really dumb title. This isn't an athletic competition for Christ sake! It sounds like some dippy mid-level corporate sales manager's idea to inspire a weary "team" of salespeople. Also, although I am not a scholar of athletics, it is my guess that any "team" is only as strong as its weakest player. And THAT team (the RA contingent) has some REAL dummies on it!

That's also why I do not think "that those guys are paid by the medical industry". Certainly, anything is possible, but there honestly just doesn't seem to be enough intellectual luminescence emanating from any of these forum hijackers/twits to compete with a lighted matchstick!

As for the (self-appointed) "leaders" whom these dummies continue to embrace (Crowe, Duesberg, Farber, Bauer, etc...), ALL BETS ARE OFF. All of these "leaders" should (and probably DO) "know better". It is indeed tempting to wonder why THESE parties continue with their fatally flawed approach.

OH, and please do not be discouraged by any of these developments. It's about time these actions were taken. Instead of trying to figure out why these jerks behave the way they do, those of us who are literate, astute dissidents should continue working behind and in front of the scenes (as I assure you we have been) to rid the dissident movement of this albatross (the RA contingent) that has been around our collective necks for too long. The first necessary but not sufficient step in accomplishing this is to get everyone to clearly assert their alignment so we all know where everyone stands.

Rod Knoll,
"AIDS Dissidents EXPOSED"

 on: April 07, 2010, 01:05:31 AM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by aixur 5706
One or two months before the hijacking of the former forum, I had more and more bad feelings about it. Each time someone wanted to go further than only aids dissidence and reappraise other things (like antibiotics, other illnesses, etc...), they were people who seemed to be there only to counter him. They acted just like infiltrators paid by the medical industry (one thing among others which made me think that was their contempt and rudeness).

I think they are there to prevent aids dissidence to go further. I think people from the CIA could call that "damage control". I have one guy like that on my sidasante forum. He never writes anything on the forum. But, each time I write something going further than classical aids dissidence, he is immediately there to counter me.

And what annoyed me is that moderators from the former forum didn't said anything about this. Everything seemed all right for them. For me, it was a behavior of traitors. At this time, as the moderators were people who have been dissidents for a long time, I thought I was too suspicious. Now, it seems I was completely right.

My opinion is that those guys are paid by the medical industry. Who, other than people like that, would have hijacked this forum ?

So now, American and English aids dissidence is in a bad situation. And as people from the USA and England were the most active ones, the entire aids dissidence is in a bad situation.

 on: April 05, 2010, 05:28:20 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
At the risk of being accused of, in the words of stupid shit Brian Coogan, "attacking", "pulling down" and "tear(ing) down the one organization that is making a consistent effort", I should remind everyone that a lawsuit has just been filed against the President of the Rethinking AIDS Organization, David Crowe.

Last week, in Alberta, Canada, a lawsuit was filed against David Crowe and other former leaders of the Alberta (Canada) Green Party. For more details, please see this PRESS RELEASE.

For more information about the problems the Alberta Green Party has experienced before and after Crowe and the other former party leaders got ousted, please see:

One has to wonder how much longer clueless Coogan and his fellow forum hijackers/redneck dildos will continue "backing (RA) up" and "giving (RA) a go" while the RA board continues to allow someone like Crowe to be their leader??? I wonder, too, if forum hijacker Lance still finds all of our "infighting...just so goddamn tedious" in light of this most recent development? In addition, does the ever insightful hijacker Carter still believe this to be a "perceived flaw" of Crowe's or has it now at long last become an actual flaw of Crowe's in Carter's "razor-sharp" mind? Quite frankly, Carter's writing style has led me to believe that he might have a developmental disability. Also, is the equally dim-witted hijacker Barnett at long last "able to follow a discussion about" this particular issue, and is he still convinced that "the problem that glares at (him) when reading about" our criticisms of RA and Crowe ("EGO") still applies to "both sides" of this dissident civil war??

 on: April 04, 2010, 07:50:56 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
Last week, in Alberta, Canada, a lawsuit was filed against David Crowe and other former leaders of the Alberta (Canada) Green Party. For more details, please see this PRESS RELEASE.

For more information about the problems the Alberta Green Party has experienced before and after Crowe and the other former party leaders got ousted, please see:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!