AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog
October 21, 2016, 12:29:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
 on: February 19, 2010, 05:55:35 AM 
Started by Anthony Brink - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
"I want to shut up now. Sometimes I really want to shut up and I can't...."

-Celia Farber on Facebook, June, 2013

Rod Knoll Comments:

(First of all, again, the topic title for this thread was chosen by this forum's administrator-yours truly- and not by Mr. Brink.)

LATEST UPDATE: It's unfortunate that Celia Farber seems unable to follow her own advice, particularly the message above that she posted on Facebook in 2013. Most recently, Farber has taken to giving ADVICE, telling a long-time member of the dissident community that he "...can stay healthy rather inexpensively with a few choice foods and supplements..." and that she "can help you if you like."! This is just the latest example of a proverbial STEWARDESS WHO THINKS SHE CAN FLY THE PLANE.

My older comments continue below:

I can only assume that divorce must be rough.

I can only assume so because I have been very fortunate in that I have not had to endure a broken family myself. I can thankfully only imagine the horrors of divorce that must be inflicted on children of broken families.

Celia Farber might have been severely traumatized by her own parents' real-life divorce.

I know it is dime store psychology I am practicing, here, but that is the only rational explanation I can find for Farber's increasingly bizarre behavior that she has exhibited in the past few years since the "divorce proceedings" among the AIDS dissident community to whom Farber herself has referred as a sort of "family". (see this document: for more information)

The problem, though, is that veteran dissident and diehard Duesberg supporter Farber chose to consult a modern artist for help in exorcising what she has called "demons", of which yours truly apparently is one, according to Farber herself. Farber has failed to realize that, instead, she probably needs to consult a qualified psychiatrist to help her deal with the mental anguish that she has inflicted on herself in the wake of the great dissident divorce. One wonders if Farber lacks the resources and the access to the proper therapeutic outlets for resolving IN PRIVATE whatever mental issues she has?! It is almost as if Farber seemingly has chosen to inflict her own real-life, apparently unresolved divorce issues on the entire AIDS dissident community.  

After all, the AIDS dissident movement IS all about HER, judging from Farber's own various postings. Celia Farber is a white, self-centered, self-entitled, bat-shit crazy (scroll down to see examples in content below) American child of UNDENIABLE privilege and wealth who supports the Tea Party, can afford to live in a nice neighborhood in Manhattan (probably because she receives financial support in addition to her own presumably paltry income) and who once referred to yours truly as "a low-rent punk". This snobby, elitist statement of hers was clearly meant as an insult to me which she wrote in an effort to make me appear "less than" someone like herself who, as I said comes from UNDENIABLE privilege. The fact is, even in my "low-rent" (actually, middle to lower-middle class) upbringing, I had tremendous privilege I did not realize I had while growing up, when compared on a GLOBAL scale, especially compared to a Developing World environment. My point is, it is true that the term privilege is absolutely a relative term, but anyone with half a brain who spends 2 minutes exploring Farber's background can clearly see she comes from an UNDENIABLE level of privilege. In addition, elitist Farber might have had her ego inflated even more due to a recent development when courts recently also proclaimed that Farber is a "limited-purpose celebrity"? Part of Farber's notoriety comes from her repeated rants against political correctness, and, as anybody with half a brain can tell you, such right wing ideology is not very helpful for any literate AIDS dissidents who are making attempts at reaching an audience comprised of gays and others affected by the "AIDS" scam!

However, one of the most offensive examples of Farber's "anti-PC" feelings has to be a remark she made to a friend in private some years ago during the antebellum period of the AIDS dissident movement when she was still friends with a Perth Group supporter. While writing in private from one friend to another, Farber joked to her then-friend that the color of the text in his e-mails is always-in Farber's own words-

"a faggy blue"!!

My hope is that the color of this text-which I use throughout this venue- is "faggy" enough to repulse Farber. Suffice it to say, Farber is woefully ill-equipped to fight the AIDS industry on BOTH scientific AND political grounds, IF and WHEN the political fight ever becomes necessary. However, because of her and other Duesberg supporters' FAILURE to grasp the science, it is becoming HIGHLY doubtful that the dissidents' political fight will EVER eventuate, since anyone with half a brain will know that, without SOLID science, the dissidents have NO argument whatsoever!  

At any rate, putting aside all speculation, what is undeniable is the fact that since the civil war between the two main factions of AIDS dissidents was escalated circa 2009, Celia Farber, who now repeatedly asserts that "AIDS is a frequency" (!), has exhibited a bizarre combination of behavior consisting of a variable pattern of:

1. vicious, unsolicited and personally insulting private e-mails Farber sent to those of us who are espousing that the Perth Group are right and Duesberg is wrong and that he must be made to answer for his unproven claims about "HIV" and the etiology of "AIDS", as well as public displays by Farber of such attacks and lies.

2. outright lies about various other issues (Scroll down in this message)

and last but not least

3. An ongoing and unfortunately public "New Age acid trip" (see content below)

In her reply to the Perth Group's document on Montagnier's "Mea Culpa", Farber writes about Djamel Tahi's major interview with Luc Montagnier during which the so-called discoverer of "HIV" admitted to Tahi that they (Montagnier's team at the Pasteur Institute) "did not purify" the virus. See for the transcript of this interview which every dissident with half a brain knows was a significant development.

Farber claims in her reply to the Perth Group's criticism:

"(Tahi's interview) was widely cited and discussed (by AIDS dissidents), as all major breakthroughs have been", and then Farber claims that she, too "cited (Tahi's work) and wrote about it..."

Unfortunately for Farber, the internet is a powerful tool and is rather useful for searches of one's previous writings. Contrary to Farber's assertion that the Tahi interview of Montagnier was "widely cited and discussed" by dissidents, a search for the name "Tahi" on the oldest and longest-running dissident web site virusmyth yields citations of Tahi and his interview that are almost exclusively made by the Perth Group and/or Continuum Magazine, which was the venue that originally published the interview. Also, apparently contrary to Farber's other claim that she "cited (Tahi's work) and wrote about it", no citations of Tahi appear in any of the articles which Farber wrote which are archived on the virusmyth site.

It is possible that dissidents-including Farber-may have cited the Tahi interview in old internet forums (such as the old virusmyth forum), but I find it interesting that such a "major breakthrough", as Farber herself calls it, could have been cited and discussed so much by Farber or ANY of her fellow Duesberg dittoheads on internet fora but would NEVER have been cited-not even ONCE- by ANY of them in ANY of the articles they all wrote after Continuum published the interview....

Undoubtedly, Farber is angry at the Perth Group for actually asserting themselves and disassociating-or "divorcing" from the Rethinking AIDS group as they did in the document at THIS LINK, despite the fact that it was Farber herself who was the first one to suggest such a divorce! From the vitriol she expressed in her psychotic, harrassing private e-mails, it is clear that Farber is also certainly angry at those of us who have publicly defended the Perth Group from Farber's efforts at distorting the truth about what has been done to the Perth Group by the Duesberg faction of RA. Farber publicly has called Perth Group supporters "lethally academic", and, in a manner typical of a right-wing loony, Farber even called me  a "far left dissident bolshevilki" as if that was meant to insult me! The joke, as always, is on Farber, as I really enjoyed having that label bestowed upon me!

At any rate, what Farber and other diehard Duesberg cultists who are angry at the Perth Group and angry at us Perth Group supporters fail to realize is 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...

In addition, Farber has ironically repeatedly cried "victim". Yet, this begs the question: what is one to make of Farber's own behavior she has exhibited over the past few years during which time Farber herself has repeatedly chosen to attack Eleni Papdopulos-Eleopulos (hereafter referred to as "Eleni P-E", "Eleni"), an undeniably brilliant woman of Greek heritage who is probably old enough to be Farber's mother??!! Farber has been made aware that her relentless lies and attacks on the Perth Group have repeatedly made Eleni very upset. However, Farber has chosen to continue with HER attacks against Eleni, all the while having the gall to hypocritically claim that she, Farber, is a victim of "misogyny"!

As the Perth Group have noted in their document where they dissociate from David Crowe's Rethinking AIDS group:

"Anyone studying Celia’s emails and postings...could not fail to notice that she too can be remarkably feisty and is not averse to throwing sticks and stones at Anthony (Brink) or the Perth Group"

(see again this document: )

Furthermore, if one wishes to invoke misogyny, one also has to wonder where it was that Celia Farber stood during the entire history of the old "Group for Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" (hereafter referred to as "the Group") when it was a male-dominated board of directors that controlled that organization which, despite the fact that it was DEAD by 2005, is claimed to be the pre-cursor to the current Rethinking AIDS group led by cell phone salesman David Crowe? Farber may have been the first bimbo elevated by the all-white, all-male, all-heterosexual (except when John Lauritsen joined the board of the old "Group") power clique in charge of the AIDS dissident movement, but she was hardly the last.

Farber and fellow American, the late Christine Maggiore were the only two women to ever sit on the board of the old Group. Both women were lay people, of course. Despite the fact that both could be deemed rather physically attractive by hetero standards, Maggiore had a limited capacity-which Farber continues to exhibit- to understand the scientific material. Unfortunately, Farber continues to feel compelled to keep discussing and analyzing this technical material in public arenas, despite her own admission in those public arenas that she is not really "fluent" in the technical issues. Presumably right up until her NUCLEAR BOMB of a death which was dutifully reported as an "AIDS death" by every AIDS industry supporter and his brother, Maggiore was one of the most vehement (LITERALLY "diehard") defenders of Peter Duesberg, just as her former harness mate Farber has been, at least until her recent apparent endorsement of De Harven (see below). I guess, though, for the deceased Maggiore, the heated and widespread coverage of her own death-despite the fact that most of it was devastatingly negative for the dissident movement-was nevertheless quite a pleasing and proud posthumous moment for her, since Maggiore was as much a publicity whore as Farber continues to be. Meanwhile, unfortunately, the undeniable and profound failure of Duesberg's hypothesis -which Maggiore promoted throughout most if not all of her career as an internationally famous/infamous AIDS dissident- continues to get swept under the carpet by Farber and other supporters.

Despite being resolutely out to lunch on many of the scientific issues she would repeatedly attempt to discuss (a deficiency that the late Maggiore shared with Farber), Maggiore, however, also had a phenomenally sharp wit and offbeat sense of humor. These are two things that Farber definitely lacks as does practically everyone else in the dissident movement. Another key difference between Farber on one hand and on the other hand, Maggiore and other latter-day Maggiore wannabees-both male and female- who achieved prominence in the dissident movement is that Farber has never claimed to have tested "seropositive" on any tests for so-called "HIV". As such, Farber has an additional deficiency in a PR sense in that she doesn't have the appropriate "serological status" necessary in order to be deemed a complete "heroine", which is how many idiotic AIDS dissidents to this day continue to regard Maggiore. In addition, as a presumed "seronegative" individual, Farber is also infinitely less susceptible to any efforts that mother nature might care to make in order to shut her up permanently. (This, unfortunately, was  the only way that Maggiore would ultimately shut the fuck up.)

While Maggiore never publicly admitted to her intellectual shortcomings, Farber herself has recently finally conceded her failure in this regard (see below). Unfortunately that has not stopped Farber from continuing her embarrassing attempts at writing about the sometimes highly technical issues surrounding "HIV" and "AIDS". Nor has this fact retarded in any way the dissident leadership's support of Farber just as they also continue their support of the late Maggiore posthumously, and in many shocking instances, their support borders on idolatry of Maggiore. However, the leaders of RA and the dissident movement, in fact, have always had a habit thinking with their penises (see: for more information on this).

Throughout its history, the old Group did many things that were purposefully meant to limit promotion of the Perth Group and Perth's theories at the benefit of Duesberg and the contingent supporting him, although certainly the treatment that the Perth Group received from the old Group back then was not nearly as bad as how Crowe has treated Perth in his new RA group. In addition to the fact that Eleni P-E of the Perth Group was never invited, of course, to sit on the board of Crowe's all-new RA Group, Eleni also was NEVER put on the board of the old Group (for more information on the history of the RA group and its predecessor, see the message I have titled "What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS *Dissidence* Were Wrong?" at

It needs to be stressed that the Perth Group's leader Eleni P-E, unlike ANY other woman who has EVER sat on ANY board of ANY incarnation of ANY RA Group, is also a scientist whose analyses on AIDS have been repeatedly published and whose work on "AIDS"-UNLIKE that of Farber's idol Duesberg-has NEVER been rebutted where it counts MOST-in the scientific literature. Whether Farber understands it or not, this makes the Perth Group the SCIENTIFIC leaders of the AIDS dissident movement. Notwithstanding the aforementioned fact, the Perth Group's scientific contributions were almost always suppressed by the mostly-male board that was in charge of that old Group, and, suffice it to say, Eleni's science continues to be suppressed to this day by non-scientist businessman Crowe and his mostly male fellow partisans who are in cahoots with Crowe at his new RA group.

Speaking of suppression of the Perth Group's scientific work, it also should be noted that the Perth Group most recently (late spring, 2013) graciously responded to Celia Farber's request for more information about the process of Electron Microscopy. Yet it was Farber who decided to exclude from her latest "story" on EM all content that was graciously provided to her by the Perth Group, despite Farber's own admission that it is "most important, by far" (see below). Farber felt compelled to omit the Perth Group's content apparently because, as Farber herself has conceded many times, she does not "have the mental stamina to unravel" the Perth Group's work.

Farber, who is perhaps one of the original proverbial dissident "stewardesses attempting to fly an airliner", attempts to include the requisite technobabble in her latest poetry sample, her "story" on EM.

See here:

The “debate” about HIV’s causation has been, I’m devastated to realize, obscured by the sheer fact that we used as concepts, symbols, words that lacked meaning. We began by saying “Does HIV cause AIDS,” when we should have said, “What do we mean when we say “HIV?”

If you have the mental stamina to unravel it, please read the writings collected at The Perth Group’s website. I have certainly failed on this front–trying to unravel this. It was the hardest part of the gigantic knot, but it was the most important, by far.


The knot ties all perceptions, illusions, shadows, linguistics, hallucinations, and stunning truths together at its center: HIV’s existence (as exogenous “retrovirus,” in human blood, not as technological artifact,) the “validity” of the “HIV test,” the question of “cause” and pathogenicity, and the question of infectivity.

To accusations that I have not dealt with this adequately, I am guilty as charged.

In other words:  I have mostly (not entirely) wasted the past 27 years of my life as an AIDS unraveler.

Now THERE we AGREE! LOL! Except it WAS INDEED a COMPLETE WASTE on Farber's part. However, not unlike a scientific "Mr. Magoo" blindly driving a speeding car down a highway, Farber unfortunately continues to this day (2013) to ignore all signs that are screaming that she should just shut the fuck up and get lost. Yet Celia is blissfully unaware of the profound implications of having wasted all her energy all these years:

But that’s ok, I’m still hopeful and cheerful. Many people waste their lives on worse things than this.

WOW! Talk about POOH-POOHING! Like Farber, I, too, feel that I have WASTED a lot of time (18 years for me) on a faulty cause through my earlier tacit support of Duesberg. However, unlike Farber, I started feeling this way MANY YEARS ago (10+ years) after most of my "positive" dissident friends started DYING!! Notoriously, I would sometimes literally SCREAM at IDIOTS on various internet venues urging them to reject Duesberg, all to little if any detectable avail, as it still seems as though way too many dissidents remain woefully ill-informed and unfortunately resolute in their ill-advised support of Duesberg, including, of course, Farber.

For example: if, as Farber writes, the Perth Group's writings are "the most important" part of "the gigantic knot" she has admittedly failed to unravel, why has Farber not only excluded the Perth Group's material they sent her, but she also has the gall to then present an interview she had with a discredited dissident "scientist" who has notoriously arrogated the Perth Group's scientific analyses and bungled the science on several issues?

How on earth is including a bunch of cringingly bad science in her writings supposed to help her or anyone else "unravel...the gigantic knot"?? Setting aside all of the undeniably weird and kooky new-age language that she has been serving on a silver platter to dissident critics in the AIDS orthodoxy for them to use as fodder against the dissidents, this is hardly the first time since she stepped out of her "retirement" from the dissident cause (circa 2006) that Farber has also embarrassed herself on the science (see: ). Farber has, in this latest effort of hers, merely exchanged Duesberg for a French FOOL (De Harven)! In fact, this "scientist" has such an appalling grasp-or rather, complete LACK thereof-of some SIMPLE terms that one can safely assume that he has become the laughing stock of "dissident science" (an oxymoron if there ever was one). It is doubtful that Farber even has the ability to comprehend that the pet theory-that "HIV" is an ENDOGENOUS retrovirus-which is espoused by her latest dissident "hero" (the hopelessly DENSE DUH-Harven) is diametrically OPPOSED to the theory that has been espoused for decades by her long-time dissident hero (and daddy figure?) Duesberg-that is, the theory that "HIV" is "an EXOGENOUS but harmless retrovirus".

God forbid if THIS is the "hope" that fills Farber!

Please see THIS RECENT BLOG POST for more information.

Idiot Farber continues to opine on Facebook as recently as early 2014 that she thinks that:

"saying the virus does not exist causes too much resistance and trauma, whereas going through the 'HIV tests' is less overwhelming, and also more grounding, accurate. HIV does exist in and through the technologies that 'exist' to find it...."

This is yet another example of the stupid, incoherent, schizophrenic rantings of ALL the other AIDS dissidents who have, since Farber began writing about the so-called "HIV tests" and Maggiore later began her failed attempts at scientific prowess, attempted to make sense of these technical issues like the problems with the tests, all the while IGNORING the main, underlying factor that is influencing EVERYTHING:


Furthermore, if Farber is unable to understand by now that the Perth Group are saying there is NO PROOF that the virus has been properly isolated and NOT "saying the virus does not exist", then how on earth can we ever expect Farber to understand ANYTHING??!!

Please keep reading the content below for a more extended history of examples of Farber's bizarre actions...

From the "nothing surprises me anymore" category:

In what has become an on again/off again affair with her, Celia Farber has once again decided to step through the apparently revolving door on the exit to the dissident movement, and she is now of the opinion that the dissident movement needs her"efforts" (as of early 2012). See my note at the end of this message for more details. It may help to keep in mind her history with the dissident cause, including her more recent...ahem..."contributions" such as the items she wrote during the escalation of the civil war between the Perth Group and the Duesberg/RA factions of dissidents.

For example, the following commentary from Farber should prove enlightening:

Celia Farber said
2009/11/17 at 12:30 am


I am writing this from a table-top in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where I retreated to after the conference. I have begun work on a book about the half of my life spent inside this war. Not a book about me but a book about the winning frequency, (love) by way of pain, error, abjection.


Today I turned myself over to a healing place high in the hills, where they have built a box capable of emitting the same frequency as pure love. I plan to get myself into this box every day I am here, and twice on the last day.


(Excerpted from: )

This gem from Farber has made discrediting her so easy and, of course, Farber's diatribe excerpted and linked above has been duly and repeatedly cited by many orthodox critics of the dissidents. If Farber is making any effort, especially one like writing "a book about the half of (her) life spent inside this war", one can safely bet that that effort she makes will INDEED be "about" her. She has done this in most of her recent efforts in the dissident movement. In yet another short-sighted move, Farber posted comments on the hijacked forum, which was a pre-cursor to this venue. In one of her entries there, she claimed that the hijacked forum has "graduated to a higher frequency" (!) ostensibly because the twats who hijacked the old forum have a "negativity filter" that Farber "appreciate(s) and crave(s)".

[Now that a few of the "positive" moderators at the hijacked forum are taking the "anti-HIV" drugs (see: ), I am not sure if Farber still thinks that the hijacked forum is operating at "a higher frequency" and if she thinks the forum still has the purported "negativity filter" which she "appreciate(s) and crave(s)"]

Farber also conceded on the hijacked forum in 2010 that she has "never known how to take what (she thinks/feels/knows) and change it into something palatable" and that she wants "to be productive, part of the answer, not unconsciously repeating OLD energy patterns..."

Lastly, she decrees that "All negativity and all accusation should go", but she makes the following exception: "UNLESS it is critical for progress/understanding/forward motion...."

(Celia Farber, 26 March, 2010)

-DUH! That's exactly my point!!

I do agree that all this "negativity and accusation" IS critical for progress, and this is why I've changed the focus (and name) of this forum: to concentrate my efforts to that end. Despite the fact that she claims she is "not unconsciously repeating OLD energy patterns", Celia Farber has exhibited a never ending devotion to Peter Duesberg. She has fashioned herself into-and has allowed herself to be portrayed as-a long-term pseudo-celebrity LEADER of the AIDS dissident movement. However, in light of the undeniable stagnation that has permeated the AIDS dissident movement for such a long time and in light of the fact that Farber is in her third decade of activism as an AIDS dissident., I honestly have to wonder if someone who is in her position should be trusted to know precisely what "is critical for progress/understanding/forward motion"?!

Apparently, Farber also agreed with me on THAT point, too, at least briefly. On 31st March, 2010, Farber announced on the hijacked forum that she was "leaving all AIDS work behind, categorically". However it was all apparently a premature April Fools' joke since the message was deleted within a day.

Farber's message where she claimed to be "leaving all AIDS work behind, categorically" was captured by a third party orthodox AIDS blog. The formatting was lost, though, so all paragraph spacing in the message below is an estimate which may not match the spacing in the original. However, the original is, again, no longer available anywhere on the web.

Here, now is Celia's now-deleted post:

An Open Letter to Jonathan and Concession (hopefully un-doing some damage)

Note: I answer here, a private letter, not included, and address its contents publicly, for reasons addressed in the letter. It is not necessary, for this to make sense, to know which "Jonathan," or to know what the letter said exactly. This speaks to the issue of misplaced anger, and amends.

Dear Jonathan,
Your lengthy letter of criticisms, or "concern" about me is not without merit, and I am well aware of how long overdue it is for me to shut up, once and for all. In my increasingly desperate efforts to connect, communicate, rouse, awaken, shake up, change, and somehow cast off all the oppressive clouds of this whole thing, I lost my way. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, however painful it may have been, it was an important message for me to hear and it was the same message I had been getting on my own, from my end, and from the people around me, like my family and close friends.
The anger you mention stems from the immense frustration of failure, and failure comes from bad or expired energy, not knowing what you are actually supposed to be doing, or why. I have repeatedly promise/threatened to get out of the way, to quit all this, but I kept getting pulled back, because the powerful emotions were still unresolved, about everything witnessed, experienced, felt and seen that never got set right, or absolved. This made me angrier and angrier until I became chronically combative, and of no use to anybody. The bursts of enthusiasm and hope were so easily punctured, transforming into impotent rage when things didn't change.
Your interpretation, however, that it was "all about" me--that I must counter. It was all about trying to win a war that can't be won-- trying to stop the nightmarish tide of bullying and degradation and sickness and death that we have been subject to as a group, and wanting everybody to fight with the hot-headed temperament that is second nature to me but obviously not something I could dictate in others. I wanted to be be purposeful and effective, but kept reaping the opposite of that. You're quite right, for example, that nobody owed it to me to join a Facebook group opposing 'denialism' just because I was hopped up about it. I realized that when it was too late. But I think it was a little uncharitable to call it my "bandwagon," because if it was a bandwagon, it was one of many that I imagined (insanely) might offer others the same relief I myself was seeking.
Most of my waking hours are spent tending to something or other in the dissident field, lately it has mostly been battles, emotions, hurt feelings, etc. It's not true to say that it is all self-serving. I was genuinely excited for example, about my conversation with Freddie because I thought he represented a new spirit of affirmation and positivity and generosity and life, and that we needed that, as an antidote to massive anxiety. There's alot that I do that you don't know about. It's like being an air-traffic controller. Last few weeks, for example, I started batting away at all kinds of things I wanted to see happen for Tommy Morrison, even engaging my father...memos, people, managers, Page Six, all kinds of stuff that was basically coming from the same place as all the rest, namely the FANTASY that all we need is one break in the case and the wall will come tumbling down. We were ALL like this, for so many years, like a factory, everybody thinking we knew what we were producing, namely the Big Break. One acted for others as a means of acting also for oneself, which is a little bit different from the self absorbtion you assign to me. I was trying to bash my way free. It was one thing after another.
For years, it was EJ. Me and Christine and the fantasy of justice. Poring over every detail over and over, day in day out. For what? Brent Leung called me several times a week for about 8 years. He didn't know anything or anybody. If I could unhook this backpack of history and all the threads that seem to go through me I happily would. Now I can. Your letter helped me with that. I think I overestimated my centrality and importance and underestimated how well everything could chug along without me. None of us were able to do the thing we all dreamed of.
Some of us got smart early and some of us refused to accept reality. I do think, deep inside, that if you fancy yourself "helping" anybody, in some way you are lost. You're feeding yourself, perhaps. That's the level at which I fully accept your criticism. I post this publicly because I am now leaving all AIDS work behind, categorically, and feel I deserve to prattle on one last time about why I need to leave-- shut up already, move on, accept everything as it was, and say goodbye with maturity and not petulance. I hope you can forgive me for my mistakes and transgressions and eruptions. Keep sane, stick together, and don't lose faith in the importance of what you're doing.


Please go to THIS MESSAGE for an explanation of why I've been so critical of Farber and Crowe (in case it's not obvious by now).

In one post she wrote after deciding she was staying in the dissident movement, Farber attempted to gain sympathy for her deceitful hero 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.  For more information, please CLICK HERE. However, in a pattern that has become all too familiar with Farber, that message was deleted fairly soon after it was posted.

Prior to putting her "self-victimising New Age acid trip" (as one Perth Group supporter has called it) "on hiatus", Farber had taken to writing about herself in the third person, specifically claiming that she is "not that person who wrote about AIDS". "That's all her", Farber wrote on 25 April, 2010, pondering "how strung out (she) was from people wanting her but not me (Farber)...". Farber then writes that she "created her ('that person who wrote about AIDS'), but she wasn’t giving me any oxygen so now I am leaving her on the high mountain where she can condemn the Gods if she needs to. She can live on, but we must part ways...."

Farber's message about her "hiatus":

"The Truth Barrier will now pause. The main site's archives remain accessible. The forum will close until further notice. Thank you all!"

-remained on the site for a while until...she revived the site again.

Then, on 31st March, 2011, Farber shut down her site again, after reviving it...after shutting it down previously on 31st March, 2010.

One of the efforts Farber put forth between her several hiatuses was an extremely flattering portrait of one Marco Ruggiero, who is supposedly a "dissident" and supposedly a "scientist" whose primary assertion about "HIV" and "AIDS" is that "HIV is not the 'sole' cause of AIDS". For more information on Ruggiero and the many problems with him, please see THIS MESSAGE, and read all the links contained in it.

Then, in early 2012 and after having "parted ways" with "that person who wrote about AIDS", Farber once again reunited with her alter ego, the one she herself has described as "that person who wrote about AIDS". In what has become an annual ritual for her, Farber changed her mind about the dissident cause and decided to be active again in the dissident movement. She was hosting her own internet "radio show" for a few months, and on it she attempted to discuss the science of various issues, most prominently of course was...wait for it....YES, "AIDS", a subject which she herself has often conceded she does not completely understand.

Then, in a welcome development, Farber had stopped doing her show. However of course, Farber has proven unable to resist the spotlight, so she once again foolishly decided that the AIDS dissident cause simply cannot survive without her so-called ...ummm...."frequencies" she is making social media posts for the whole world to see where she continues her embarrassing "New Age acid trip"...



 on: February 10, 2010, 01:27:29 PM 
Started by Anthony Brink - Last post by Anthony Brink
[Rod Knoll Comments:

The topic title for this thread was chosen by this forum's administrator (yours truly) and not by Mr. Brink. Scroll down to the next message for new, additional comments in a message that is frequently updated.]

Blog posts concerning the Parenzee case were suppressed either by Farber's webmaster or by Farber herself on her own venue1

1. CLICK ON THIS LINK for more information.

(In addition to Mr. Brink's replies, the original posts in question made by Farber herself have since been deleted from Farber's forum.)

Also see THIS LETTER from the Perth Group to Farber. For Farber's dismal reply and another idiotic rant from David Crowe go to then search for the phrase "The Perth Group write to Celia Farber" on that page, and read all the links contained in that paragraph.

And scroll down to the next message below for more information...

 on: February 08, 2010, 10:00:23 AM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
Welcome to the NEW AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog

This page gets UPDATED frequently. Please read the entire page for all updated content.

"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

"The AIDS dissidents themselves have destroyed the dissident movement"

-Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth Group

This blog is now focused on revealing the crisis in the AIDS dissident movement vis-a-vis the people and issues behind the "Rethinking AIDS" organization and other groups of AIDS dissidents that have hindered progress for the dissident movement in general and in particular, for the "Perth Group" of researchers, for years. I am working to expose the organization known as "Rethinking AIDS", its leaders, its partisans, its affiliated groups of AIDS dissidents and all of their activities throughout the history of the AIDS dissident movement. [For more on the history of the AIDS dissident movement, I urge you to read THIS POST (click here) and all of the links contained in that post.]

PLEASE NOTE: I have not left the dissident movement, neither have I morphed into a dissident "per se". There is still an awful lot of confusion-particularly among the various "kindergarten"-type mentalities that unfortunately persist among other AIDS dissidents-about what is the mission of this blog and what, by extension, is MY own "philosophy" on "AIDS".

If you are a lay person (i.e., NOT a medical doctor or professional researcher):


This blog is basically NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

If you are a lay person, especially one who has been diagnosed "HIV positive", and you are still new to the AIDS dissident controversy in general, you need  to have *YOUR PHYSICIAN(S)* read the material that is on this blog as well as the material on the Perth Group's web site, beginning with these eight frequently asked questions and answers.

If you ARE a physician or researcher, I urge you to keep an open mind while you are reviewing the material at the links above. Like the Perth Group, I also encourage those who have professional scientific or academic affiliations who may have comments or criticisms of the Perth Group's work to submit their criticisms to the various peer-reviewed scientific journals which have published the Perth Group's scientific papers. The scientific literature is the ONLY place where any criticisms of the Perth Group will carry any weight, and so far, unlike for other AIDS dissident scientists, no one has rebutted the Perth Group where it counts most:





See THIS THREAD for more information.

It is no secret that there have been many "positive" dissidents who have died or become ill. Of course, every scientifically literate dissident is keenly aware that there is no proof that any such "positive" dissident who has died has ever been infected with "HIV" (just as there is no proof that ANY "positive" person, living or dead, has ever been infected with "HIV"). However, it should be stressed that there is also no evidence that I could find in any account from any dissident or orthodox source that any such dissident who HAS died has ever followed an approach to addressing his or her "positivity" that is aligned with the Perth Group's suggestions which they make in their papers and articles. These suggestions made by the Perth Group are, of course, always supported by published data.

Also see (again) THIS THREAD for yet another example of the confusion and problems that occur when lay people who are "positive" dissidents decide to create treatment strategies on their own based upon their own limited understanding of technical issues and without the involvement and participation of doctors, most of whom also lack an understanding of the technical issues.

This blog is run by Rod Knoll, a veteran AIDS dissident and long-time supporter of the Perth Group whose biographical information appears at the bottom of this message and along the upper left hand side of this screen. It is important to stress that, with the exception of all web pages that are part of the "" domain name, I do NOT endorse or advocate any "advice", information or content that is found on any other web sites or internet venues. My non-endorsement is very broad and applies to other web sites or venues that are dissident in origin and even to venues that are run by other supporters of the Perth Group, including other internet venues that are operating under this same domain name. Other exceptions are when I post a specific link to a particular web page, and I clearly state endorsement of, or agreement with, the content found on that page.

In addition, this site and all other web sites that are using the domain name operate independently of each other and mostly independently of the Perth Group. The Perth Group has NOT authorized anything that is published at this specific venue, The AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog, but, when the Perth Group HAS authorized any other site owner to publish a document on OTHER sites that exist under the domain name, such articles and documents are clearly marked as documents written by the Perth Group themselves.

You are NOT required to register on this forum in order to read messages posted here, and NO COMMENTS are allowed on any of the discussions.

 on: February 07, 2010, 09:36:10 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
I hope that one takes the time to read this ENTIRE post to see why I have chosen the title I have for this post.

What follows are excerpts from a discussion that occurred on another internet forum concerning David Crowe, Grand poo-bah or, rather, "PRESIDENT" of the Rethinking AIDS organization. It is a discussion that was between "CS" whom I profile below and Anthony Brink, founder of Treatment Information Group. Brink's comments are in blue and "CS'" comments are in purple. The red comments are mine (Rod Knoll's).

It should be noted that, on 10th May, 2014, "CS", whose comments appear below in purple, died. "CS" was a reserved, timid Canadian lay person who spent many years drifting around the AIDS dissident movement. He had a history of embracing different theories at different times. "CS" was a founding member of a famous group of Canadian AIDS dissident lay activists. The group that "CS" helped to form, like all the other AIDS dissident groups past and present that lay people have formed, proved to be a largely ineffectual group. This was clear even by the time this guy's seropositive partner/co-founder passed away in 2003. Quite understandably, this sent "CS" into even further retreat and neither he nor the group he co-founded managed to recover the modicum of prominence they once had in the dissident movement.

Then, sometime around 2005, Crowe hatched the idea of reviving RA, and the rest as they say-and as this forum thoroughly documents-is history. "CS" was a supporter and former collaborator of David Crowe who, like many seropositive supporters of Crowe and Rethinking AIDS both past and present, saw a decline in his health over the last two years and apparently suffered from KS during the last few months of his life. However, "CS" apparently (and unfortunately) maintained his flawed dissident viewpoint (see below) until the end, all of this according to his current husband.

And now "CS" unfortunately has joined a growing list of seropositive AIDS dissidents whose most meaningful contributions to the discourse on AIDS have been their own deaths. Please see THIS THREAD for more information.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS from me appear after the discussion between Brink and "CS", as does additional vapid commentary from the hopelessly misguided and now-deceased "CS".

"CS" first comment:

In my reading of the conflict over how best to present dissenting ideas in the various forums - media, courts, etc, I can see that there are very passionate opinions about how to accomplish that, and about what has transpired for the dissident movement as a result of the different approaches, and individual actions.

However, email and discussion threads are not the ideal place to have a nuanced discussion of these subjects and differences, because the written word in these forums lacks clarity of tone. I think it is too easy to jump to conclusions about who someone is and what their intentions truly are in the absence of direct contact. There is no 'tone of voice' here to reveal more deeply, more accurately, what our relationship the the issues is. Words are just a small part of how we understand and interpret what others say to us. We can't truly 'listen' to the written word. That's a huge problem with impassioned discussions online. Body language, facial expression and tone are vital to our full comprehension of others. Without them, we are left to fill in the blanks - and there are many - with our own take.

It is unfortunate that we are all so far apart, I encourage everyone to remember that much subtlety is lost when we are not discussing them face to face.

Other than all moving to a village together, with huge research facilities and a great pub, I have no solution, but felt inclined to comment nonetheless.


Anthony Brink replies:


I appreciate your thoughtful comment. But I think some important issues you raise warrant a further look.

First off, your use of the word 'passionate' suggests emotionally clouded thinking – whereas the Perth Group's strategic conception that the AIDS construct needs to be impeached at core, at its Achilles' Heel, the missing virus problem, is crystal clear; see their argument crisply set out: .

On this pivotal point of scientific strategy in our engagement with the orthodoxy, the universally acknowledged scientific leaders of the AIDS dissident movement are opposed by a cellphone businessman from your country, who has seized political control of our movement and has consistently acted to the Perth Group's disadvantage. (A paid fifth column plant couldn't have done a better more destructive job.) This is because, although it appears Crowe is sufficiently intelligent to understand the Perth Group's point that the 'virus' has never been isolated and thereby proved to exist, he believes one should not make this case; it's all too much for people to understand, he reckons. In his opinion (of himself) he considers that only very few exceptionally brilliant people like him (he thinks) have the nous to understand the PG's science. This is why he champions what he knows to be false science, the false science that 'HIV' most certainly exists as a harmless little passenger virus that we don't have to worry about. Crowe's dismal thinking in this regard has recently been critiqued HERE.

Remarkably, Crowe actually believes that he is more capable in devising scientific strategy than the Perth Group are. This is despite the collapse of the potentially historic Parenzee case, thanks to his furtive intervention in introducing his harmless virus strategy (which he later tried dishonestly concealing from the Perth Group, only to be caught out see: ).

The idea of holding scientific conferences is principally to advance science. But such conferences also have the incidental benefit of serving as meetings places where hard feelings around scientific disagreement can be mollified, as you wish for in your post. At the last AIDS dissident conference held in Oakland CA in November, however, Crowe made sure the PG would not attend. He plainly didn’t want to see any advancement of science by resolution of the critical ‘HIV’ isolation/existence dispute between Duesberg and the Perth Group that has crippled us all these years; and he didn’t want the Perth Group or its nominated representative there to publicly take him to task for his catastrophic sabotage of the Parenzee case, for which he has never acknowledged culpability – see: and

Now he is bleating that we unproductively 'bitch' when indicting the tremendous 'harm Crowe has done to the dissident movement', as the Perth Group puts it, and continues to do – comprehensively detailed in the many articles posted at – 'The Unbelievable Mediocrity of David Crowe: Why Rethinking AIDS has the president it deserves'.

Incidentally, have you heard how, like thieves in the night, and it appears with Crowe's connivance, his friends have just stolen (an entire) discussion forum from Rod Knoll, leaving the domain he pays for stripped like a house burgled to the last teaspoon, and how they have moved the forum to another site they've set up beyond his control to ensure that no further criticism of 'the harm Crowe has done the dissident movement' is raised and discussed in that forum? ...

(UPDATE: Two of the "seropositive" thieves who stole that old forum are now TAKING the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs!! David Crowe has called one of them "insane" for deciding to take the drugs. See: for more information)

I hope that in my many written critiques of Crowe's loyal, docile, cooperative opposition to the orthodoxy my 'tone of voice' is clear, and underscores my opinion, shared by the Perth Group and all the sharper, committed AIDS dissidents I talk to, that Crowe is the AIDS dissident movement's greatest liability, who has been a disaster for us, and will continue to be until he's one day thrown out or retires in disgrace.




I remain deeply impressed by the research and contribution of the Perth Group, and I thank you for the TIG links.

However, I was referring not to them, but to those of us discussing these ideas online. I do see much passion in the exchanges and I think it can muddy the waters at times.

That there is such energy in the back and forth is a testament to the determination so many of us have to see the direction of HIV 'Science' change. Clearly we do not agree on an approach, and we may never.

I do think it remains a challenge to our understanding of each other that so few of us have ever met, and are limited in our conversations to this medium and email.

That said, I can easily imagine serious mistakes being made in this movement, and no doubt more will occur. I won't pretend to know what can be done to move us all forward.

I think an argument can be made that HIV theory is not ultimately about science, but about the politicization of it and that pure, scientific arguments cannot succeed in shifting the paradigm.

I also clearly see that pure, scientific arguments (isolation for instance) could be the death-knell for the status quo of HIV research, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion, as well as within scientific circles.

Without a doubt, within a disparate group like those of us under the AIDS Reappraisal umbrella, there will be grave mistakes, gross misunderstanding, and division. There will be anger and recrimination. We are, like it not, a kind of family. And so one hopes, however faintly, that over time there will be acknowlegment and healing.

But the truth remains that sometimes, despite their best intentions,

"Hell is other people"

Me included...


Anthony Brink replies:


You wrote:

'I think an argument can be made that HIV theory is not ultimately about science, but about the politicization of it and that pure, scientific arguments cannot succeed in shifting the paradigm.'

Please consider the Perth Group's 3 December 2008 email, responding to Torsten Engelbrecht’s suggestion for the better use of the internet by AIDS dissidents and the discussion that followed:

'We agree with Torsten's four points.

# We are NOT at all successful in fighting the HIV=AIDS dogma
# The rethinkers on earth are NOT united
# We have practically NO money to finance effective/concerted actions/campaigns
# We do NOT have the power to reach the public opinion

'To these we would like to add one of our own. The only way for us to become united is to address and resolve the seminal issue. The existence of HIV. As Michael E. said in his email July 25th, the existence of HIV "has become the entire movement's soft spot". And it's about time everybody stopped backing every horse in the stable. To extend Michael's email in regard to Peter D, everyone "has an obligation and responsibility to respond" to the existence question.

'Celia we glad you agree with Torsten and Georg's initiative and offer encouragement. We also agree we are fighting big money and our side has to be of one mind. But we also must remember the basis of the big money is science, as bad as it may be. 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.'

You say:

'I also clearly see that pure, scientific arguments (isolation for instance) could be the death-knell for the status quo of HIV research, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion, as well as within scientific circles.'

This is it. The isolation issue is the one issue the orthodoxy can't counter. It's the arrow in Achilles' Heel, the only point where the orthodoxy is totally defenseless. This is why in opposing the ventilation of the basic truth about AIDS - there is no virus at the heart of it - Crowe is our first enemy. As I said, a paid plant couldn't be doing a better, more destructive job in hobbling our march forward and wrecking our work. He's an enormously harmful element among us. In practical terms and effect, he's the AIDS industry's best friend.



Rod Knoll comments:

Later in the same year that he made the comments above (2010), "CS" wrote the following comments concerning the state of the AIDS dissident movement:
"At times, the many competing ideas have swirled around me and I found myself darting from one to the other hoping against hope for the evasive, reductionist, final answer. The One. Magic. Bullet. Like an exhausted bird, I’ve sought refuge in an ever-changing series of scientific theories of causation or prevention, only to feel myself again ‘in the sights’ of some new threat, flushed out into the open -  exposed, shivering and vulnerable -  by some new perspective, some new angle on immune suppression. What to do? What to do?"

Rod Knoll comments:

Despite all the points that Anthony Brink repeatedly raised in his clear, emotion-free and spot-on correspondence with "CS" which I have posted above, the resolutely dim-witted "CS" subsequently also conceded that he was
"effectively indifferent to all the in-fighting that began to occur some time ago within the AIDS dissident community about how we define retroviral isolation (Has ‘HIV’ been isolated? If not, what are the implications for our understanding of AIDS and retroviruses in general?). I admit to keeping-up with the back and forth about it, but the passionate efforts to persuade people to ‘take sides’ leaves me entirely cold. We can spend energy arguing the existence of ‘HIV’; we can analyze ‘HIV’ science until we can’t think anymore; but all of it is in vain if we can’t offer patients a way to treat their real illnesses–today. The back and forth of it starts to look to me like a kind of ‘fiddling while Rome burns’.....As fascinated as I am by the implications of the arguments about the existence of ‘HIV’, and by extension the way we actually define retroviruses and understand the role they play biologically, it is, in the end, all far removed from the realities faced by people who are facing illnesses."

Rod Knoll comments: NOT TRUE, "CS", NOT TRUE!

Too bad "CS" was never able to grasp that fact while he was alive. It should come as no surprise that "CS's" vapid text received rave reviews from other dim-witted dissidents! After all, "CS's" writing always had a pleasant "tone of voice", as if that matters! In fact, anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that I have blatantly STOLEN the title I have chosen for this blog post from the title of one of "CS's" vapid, rambling articles. It needs to be stressed that I do not care what LIVING RA supporters think or say, either, anymore!

I should also point out that, while it cannot be stated with certainty, it is highly doubtful that, despite any claims to the contrary that "CS" may have made, neither he nor his partner/co-founder who died in 2003 ever followed any approach that is aligned with the Perth Group's published work. For reasons I have elsewhere thoroughly examined, it is virtually impossible for them or any other seropositive dissident-living or dead-to have followed such an approach. Again, please see THIS THREAD for more information.

There are additional points for dissidents to remember. Every so often, I've noticed that dissidents grow excited by the possibility that people might start "asking questions" again about "HIV/AIDS". This is nothing new! We dissidents HAVE managed to get people to "ask questions" MANY times in the past! The problem is NOT in getting people to ask questions. The problem for dissidents is how we ANSWER those questions.

The one constant that has remained throughout the years, during times of both high and low interest from the general public, has been the fact that Peter Duesberg and his incessant acolytes (like the moronic David Crowe) have been the prominent faction of dissidents. This MUST end if we are ever to achieve REAL progress! As long as Duesberg and his fellow "HIV is a harmless virus" advocates remain in the dissident movement, the movement remains woefully unprepared to accurately answer all those questions that people might start asking.



For more insight into David Crowe's ineptitude, please see:


Rod Knoll
AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog

 on: February 07, 2010, 09:34:24 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
Coup de TWAT, Part Three: World-class bunglers "Paul King" and RA Prez David Crowe: Separated at birth?

Until now, I've resisted commenting on the relatively minor character who apparently still goes by the name "Paul King". There's only so much time in a day, and after all "Paul King" is quite powerless these days.

However, he has emerged from his cigarette butt filled sarcophagus to raise his scratchy voice once again in support of crooked Crowe's clueless clowns in their hijacking of the forum. I have to wonder if any of these twits actually ever MET ...ahem..."Paul King"?? Also, I would like to use "Paul King's" emergence as an excuse to detail a correct history of the AME forum, and in so doing, hopefully clarify some mistaken assertions that the so-called "Mr. King" and others have been perpetuating.

"Paul King"... writes about me:

Having 'entrusted' him as a co-moderator of the forum I started (and named), Rod without warning removed me as a moderator and hijacked the forum.

In addition to his ever-declining mental faculties, one could add history to the list of things that continue to elude the alias-bearing "Mr. King". The fact is, I have known the man who goes by the name "Paul King" since 1995 which is before any of the dildos who pirated the forum from me became dissidents. It was *I* who, in 2001, invited "Paul King" to design a *WEB SITE* for the group which *I* had started (without any input from "Mr. King") that was called AIDS Reality Check. In fact, one could even say that I "hired" "Mr. King" to be our web designer, even though he, of course, was NOT getting paid for the "job". I'd really prefer to stop typing these annoying quotation marks, so just know that every time I type "Paul King", "Paul", "Mr. King", "King", it is INDEED an alias he's using.

By the time Paul came on board with me in summer, 2001, I already had a very simple one-page site for AIDS Reality Check (see: this link ). Furthermore, AIDS Reality Check was the second name for the group that I started more than ten years ago which was originally called ACT UP Hollywood.  Paul also was NOT a part of this group, and I rather quickly changed the name to AIDS Reality Check after growing uncomfortable with what I saw as a careless approach being used by our supposed allies to the north, ACT UP San Francisco. (In hindsight-and after all the dissident deaths which have decimated ACT UP SF, dropping the ACT UP Hollywood name has proven to be a very smart move.)

I wanted something more than the web site we had for AIDS Reality Check. However, I did not feel it was necessary to re-invent the wheel, since there were by that time, several quality dissident sites and all we really needed to do was to link to them. These were the guidelines I gave to Paul in the summer of 2001.
SPEAKING OF EGO TRIPS: Unfortunately Mr. King balked at my request that I retain sole editorial control over the forum and insisted upon having editorial control and input and expressed that he would NOT be just a mere webmaster for the site.

AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGMENT, I acquiesced and said OK. Mr. King came back with a HUGE web site, containing graphics, a frameset with top and side menu bars and even some animation. He did volunteer his time, so I thought if he wants to do this, fine, but I never felt it was necessary (again, why re-invent the freakin' wheel?), and I never told him to do all this work. His reason for doing so was, if I recall, primarily because he felt all the other dissident sites in existence at the time were "boring" and that any site should have things like catchy animation and graphics or else we weren't going to attract people. Even a site like ours which covers a SCIENTIFIC topic?? Yes, Mr. King assured me, even a scientific site like ours...

Once I saw his work, I was undoubtedly wowed by his graphics and saw his true talent as a designer. However, remember, web designer Paul was not going to settle for being just a mere designer, so he also created many pages which he eventually filled with original content, after I relented and gave him the OK to do so. It was the quality of THIS content and the subject matter of this content which concerned me. Paul was and probably still is extremely bothered by the anti-sex messages of mainstream AIDS dogma, as David Crowe appears to be. In fact, both King and Crowe are hopelessly out to sea with respect to the potential role that sex may play in the development of "AIDS" (see and

King loves to post many anti-condom, anti-latex messages, as if this were, scientifically and politically, the wisest strategic move for AIDS dissidents. I view the condom debate as, at best, a distraction, and, at worst, a political LIABILITY for us dissidents.

Mr. King is also apparently a MENSA member; if true, he must be the MENSA member with the WORST spelling skills ever. His writing was almost always in need of editing. For these and other reasons some of which I detail below, yes it's true that I was not involved in the original creation of the AIDS Myth Exposed forum. We launched the new AIDS Reality Check site (I paid for the third-party hosting back then) in Fall, 2001. I was kept rather busy adding text to, and editing the actual web site, including almost constantly correcting Paul's errors.

When Paul told me a month or two after the launch of the new, bigger AIDS Reality Check site that he was thinking of starting a forum, I was originally hesitant. By then, I had pretty extensive experience participating in various forums and felt they weren't the best venue to use to get our message out. As I state elsewhere on this blog, I'm now NO LONGER of the opinion that internet forums open to the public ARE of ANY use for advancing the AIDS dissident cause. (In fact, I now seriously regret ALL types of interactions I EVER had with lay people on AIDS dissident issues.) Among other problems, the level of intelligence of participants in internet fora varies greatly, and things can degenerate into shouting matches. Plus I felt that the quality of King's own posts on various internet fora left much to be desired as did his original content on the main AIDS Reality Check web site. Instead, I was of the opinion that a constantly updating web site is the best way to go (this was in the days right before blogs became really popular).

Nonetheless, King pushed to start the forum. So I let him. However, he as usual, BUNGLED that right from the beginning. With respect to Mr. King naming the AME forum, I offer the following history: I have NO PROBLEM letting him take credit for the AIDS Myth Exposed name! LOL! However, it needs to be clarified that we were supposed to have a forum called AIDS Reality Check to complement-and piggy-back on-our web site by the same name which complemented our GROUP BY THE SAME NAME. However, for some reason which is still not clear to me, MENSA member "Mr. King" was not able to secure the name AIDSRealityCheck for the forum from MSN but was able to get the name AIDSMythExposed. I still to this day cringe when I hear that name, believe it or not! I have no idea why on earth MSN would allow a name like "AIDS Myth Exposed" but prohibit a name like "AIDS Reality Check"??

Another HUGE problem with the name "AIDS Myth Exposed" was the fact that, at that time, there already was a dissident web site by the name which was VERY popular and had played a pivotal role in getting the word out about the South African Presidential AIDS panel meetings and the internet exchanges that followed the panel meetings. "AIDS Myth Exposed" could have been seen as either duplicating efforts, since many internet users might just remember the "AIDS Myth" part and enter into their browsers anyway, or some veteran dissidents even might have seen AME as a slight against the already existing site. Some even might have thought we were a site aimed at "exposing" the aidsmyth site. If I'm not mistaken there was also a forum attached to the old site at that time.

Nevertheless, Mr. King. persisted with using the AME name. Also, something that Mr. King may forget-and his twitty latter-day supporters not even know-is that, not only was I pretty busy with the main AIDS Reality Check web site (correcting King's many mistakes) when he launched the AME forum in mid-December, 2001, I was knee-deep in paid work during the busiest time of the year for me. Still, even the archives of the current forum show I made my first post to the AME forum on December 23, 2001, a mere ten days after the forum's launch and right before heading out on my holiday break.

Just so it's crystal clear: I've never claimed to be a "founder" of AME; However, I AM a founder of the organization AIDS Reality Check, on whose web site the AME forum was piggy-backing for the first 15 months of the forum's existence.

In late 2002, I changed my life radically and moved to the other side of the country. Shortly after doing this, I decided to pull the plug on the main AIDS Reality Check web site. By this time, I had had many fights with Mr. King over his carelessness and error-ridden work on the main site. He was growing tired of me, too, claiming that he wouldn't tolerate my negative attitude toward him even if I WERE paying him for his work on the site. I was always of the opinion that the dissident cause is far more important than any material that could appear on any corporate-funded web site. The fact that we were all volunteers had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of work we were supposed to be doing.

After I stopped paying for hosting for the AIDS Reality Check web site, Mr. King sent me an e-mail, "begging" me to continue to pay for hosting, because of the countless hours he put into the site, literally thousands of dollars worth of work in a normal, compensated web design marketplace. Remember, I NEVER asked him to do all this; he did it anyway, even though I knew that, at best, it wasn't necessary, and, at worst, all the bells and whistles he added to the site could distract from getting the message out.

I suppose I could have sought donations to continue paying for the hosting of the main web site. However, as co-webmaster, I also had access to our web site statistics data base. I could see that the main site was not generating, even at its zenith, the level of user visits nor the LENGTH of time of user visits that I had hoped. All the snazzy animation and graphics aside, people just weren't spending enough time exploring the all-important information on the main web site. Also, the AME forum was still on MSN at that time and, even though I could not access traffic data for the forum, it was climbing the ranks of AIDS forums on MSN. As a result, I terminated the AIDS Reality Check web site in early 2003 and focused exclusively on the AME forum.

Make no mistake, the AME forum was increasingly popular, but I was growing increasingly unhappy with Mr. King's efforts on it. As they did on the AIDS Reality Check web site, King's anti-condom, anti-latex bent, his carelessness with the science and his poor writing skills continued to embarrass and frustrate me on the AME forum. When I corrected him publicly on the forum in early 2004, he had had it with me.

Paul King claims that I "without warning removed (him) as a moderator and hijacked the forum"! LOL! I will gladly let the reader decide if, based upon the history I've detailed above, my demotion of King to regular member was justified or not. After learning of his demotion, King actually STOMPED OFF the AME forum entirely and in a huff, deleted his OWN profile! Apparently insulted by my constant correcting of his mistakes, he changed the landing page of the forum on MSN (which was linked to a page on a web site under his control) to include a comment inferring that, apparently because I did not care for his carelessness and his tactics, I was not interested in making a "real difference" for the dissident cause. He also added a comment stating that the AME forum was "founded by Paul King". I laughed, then, at the absurdity of wanting credit for something one has done, yet demanding that credit be given TO ONE'S ALIAS! Nevertheless, the man who goes by the alias "Paul King" DELETED himself from the forum. I did not. I just demoted him, but I certainly was glad to see him, his sloppy work and his anti-condom rhetoric go. I had already secured the volunteer services of a very competent co-moderator by then.

Unfortunately, the software on MSN did not allow for a name change nor did MSN allow any forwarding of the pages that were on their forums server.

After the departure of "Paul King", the AME forum continued to grow from around 1,000 members and about 6,000 messages in early 2004 to its zenith of more than 2,100 members and 31,000 messages at the end of our run on MSN in early 2009. It became the number one AIDS forum of ANY persuasion-dissident OR mainstream-on MSN and stayed in that #1 position for the last few years that MSN had its forums service.

In addition, we continue to receive several hundred hits per day on this newer venue, often times exceeding 1,000 hits per day.

I guess AME just couldn't survive without the insights and guidance from the genius "Paul King"!

Whether or not the choosing of the AME name has contributed to the "success" will have to remain a mystery since I retired the AIDS Reality Check name years ago. By the time it became possible to change the forum's name (circa early 2009) when we were being forced to leave, the AIDSMythExposed name had become so familiar and so engrained that it no longer seemed advisable to do so.

Also, I have to say, however, that, more importantly, I'm not convinced at any rate that all this "popularity" has made a significant difference in the advancement of the dissident perspective where it counts most, as in, in the REAL WORLD. I tend to think that such emphasis on popularity is indicative of a high-school level mentality. This, however, is the language spoken by those twits in the RA faction.

I'm no longer convinced that an open forum is the best venue, either. I think the history of the dissident movement has clearly shown that these forums do not succeed when they are geared to a lay public.

Because I always felt the AME forum deserved to continue even though I'm no longer convinced it does (and even when I was on a much-needed break from it), I sometimes aligned myself with people I, suffice it to say, never really trusted. In addition to the man behind the alias "Paul King", Brians Coogan and Carter also come to mind.

As always, though, all roads lead to the central core issue that continues to plague dissidents: the scientific efforts aimed at exposing (or suppressing, as RA and Crowe do all the time) the problem of the missing virus.

At any rate, it is obvious that the man who uses the fake name "Paul King" and the equally lo-watt bandits who stole the old forum don't give a rat's behind about the history of AME because they're always getting it WRONG.
Rod Knoll,
"AIDS Dissidents EXPOSED"

 on: February 07, 2010, 09:29:49 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
(continued from above)

As of late March, 2016, Coogan now posted more evidence of his profound mental deficiencies when he posted the following, again in a PUBLIC venue:

"One of the things to be aware of is that the dosage these days is a LOT less than it used to be. So it's not such an obvious choice any more; some very sane and balanced people I know are on the meds at low doses and they are really helping, at those doses.

An important point to note here is this: the fact that the meds work doesn't prove or disprove HIV. They could be working for any of a variety of reasons, eg they are mildly cytotoxic to a variety of opportunistic disease bacteria. We don't have to know why they work, simply that they seem to. What is very interesting is that they are working much better at lower doses. The other interesting point is that doctors report people being brought back from death's door with ARVs of various types. Of course, and obviously, this doesn't suggest they are good long term at those doses.

My only wish with this stuff? That proper unbiassed research would be done on them..."


The record CLEARLY shows that, instead of backing up the Perth Group, who many YEARS AGO asserted EVERYTHING that Johnny-come-LATELY Coogan is now conceding above, dim-witted Coogan now conveniently seems to have forgotten that he was conspiring behind my back with his supposedly "very sane and balanced" IDIOT friends whom I've thoroughly debunked above, Barnett and Lance, to steal the forum from ME after I started asserting prominence on the old forum in FAVOR of the Perth Group.


and they will ALWAYS be the FACTS of this stolen forum incident, even though creepy Christ Freak Coogan fails to acknowledge it, and furthermore something else that to this day Coogan fails to grasp is the fact that:

NOBODY IS EVER GOING TO CARRY OUT "proper unbiassed (sic) research" because the dissident movement has been DECIMATED by Crowe and many other idiots and assholes that Coogan continues to support!

Years before I finally "hired" him to host the old forum, asshole Coogan assured me that nothing the AIDS industry could threaten would get him to take down the site or thwart any of our efforts on the forum. "Screw them. They would complain to the host, and WE'RE the host", he assured me. However, apparently for Coogan, the well-documented attacks that Brink and I began making against Crowe on the old forum were far worse than anything the AIDS industry ITSELF could have threatened.

Most likely, what really happened is that Crowe probably got to Coogan and threatened to take legal action against Coogan who was hosting my old forum where I was posting material that was critical of Crowe...

On their new, hijacked web site Coogan and his fellow Crowe clowns state:

As AIDS dissidents, we assert that the scientific community has not yet proven the cause-effect relationship between “HIV” and “AIDS”

WOW! I'm sure that BOLD statement really has the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry quaking in their boots!....NOT!

These twits apparently believe that this "HIV does not cause AIDS" approach is an untested strategy with no history of FAILURE for AIDS dissidents!

I wanted to recommend that everyone take another look at the thread from the now-defunct AME forum which started it all circa the summer of 2009. Anthony Brink archived it for the world to see, and it's at:

After seeing this thread linked above, two of the members of the "governing committee" of the new, hijacked forum-Brian Carter and Jonathan Barnett-behaved like blue-haired old church ladies, sitting in their pew, clutching their pearlstrings and huffing and puffing their disapproval.

(Update: Carter has since left his position as "team member" on the new forum and is now just a regular, albeit "veteran member". This is most likely due at least in part to his staunch objections to some of his fellow "team members"-like Barnett and Lance-starting the so-called anti-HIV" drugs, a development which I have detailed in the message above.)

Jonathan Barnett, who apparently discovered the dissident movement as recently as sometime after 2002 and who has conceded that he became "aware of the online AIDS dissident movement only in 2007", now claims  (3rd February, 2010) on their new, hijacked forum that he

"would expect that constructive criticism of an organization should be acceptable, and hopefully representatives of any AIDS dissident group will want to address those concerns in an independent forum like (the new site)".

However, when he saw the now infamous "deleted thread" that was on AME  in July-August of 2009. (See again: ), Barnett-along with Brian Carter-whined and moaned instead of taking the time to carefully review the evidence which Anthony Brink had presented and which even back then was pretty voluminous.  Fast forward to approximately three months later, late October, 2009. I had just changed the home page of the AME forum (a reproduction of which is captured in Brink's article on What's Happened to AME). The following is Jonathan Barnett's reaction to my changes to the home page, from a private e-mail he sent to me on 24th October, 2009:

Subject: WTF?
Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:01 PM
"jonathan" <jonathan@xxxxxx>
rodknollxxxxx, "Brian Carter"

What the hell is going on, Rod?

It looks like you have changed the front page again.  I guess AME is now a "pro-Perth" and "anti-RA" site?!  What happened to being open to various points of view?  AME is obviously YOUR tool, not the community's.

I could give a rat's ass about your personal agenda, but do think you at least owe those of us working the boards a head's up and some communication.

Or are you more interested in sowing discord and destroying what has taken so long to build?

I just don't get where you are coming from, let alone where you are heading.  Please speak up and take responsibility for your actions.  You have no right to drag me along with your agenda without my knowledge.

AIDSMythExposed is not nor has it ever been, a reading and comprehension program. Mr. Barnett had plenty of time to review the evidence supplied by Brink. Suffice it to say, I didn't feel like responding to Mr. Barnett ever again, since I didn't see any hope that he would ever "get where I'm coming from".

The following day (25 October, 2009) Barnett sent the following e-mail:

Subject: rephrase and apology
Sunday, October 25, 2009 6:56 PM
"jonathan" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxx>


I wish I had taken more time to think about my last response to you.  You deserve better from me.  I lost my temper because I felt blindsided by you.

For the record, I have long admired the work you used to do at the MSN site as moderator.  Your style was brusque sometimes, but you were always able to make your point clear and justify your decisions.  I think that is part of what I miss lately... your communication and contribution to the debate.

More than a couple of people have shared with me privately that they are concerned about you and your silence... lack of communication.  That's just not the Rod we know.

I just thought you should know that a lot of people actually like you and care about you, whether you like that or not.  We get hurt and angry when you won't come out and play anymore.   ;-)

As for the criticisms of Duesberg and RA, I have to say I think there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.  I'm not privy to as much info as you and others are, and if I were, too much of it is over my head to evaluate adequately.

(Then why the F doesn't he just SHUT UP and let those of us who ARE do what we clearly see needs to be done??)

I'd like to be able to follow a discussion about it.  Regardless of the faults and flaws of any group or individual, the problem that glares at me when reading about it is EGO.  On both sides.  Everyone wants to prove they are "right" and no one wants to admit they may have made mistakes or are wrong.  Too often I feel like an inconsequential observer with no power to enforce change, yet I am part of the group most directly affected by all of this!

I have to say that I don't sense that ego is a problem for you.  Obstinate, perhaps.  Dedicated, definitely.  Incredibly immersed in and aware of so many of the nuances of the dissident world that I can only sit in awe of.

No, I'm not trying to flatter you or butter you up.  I have never been more sincere with a stranger on line!  lol.  We need you, and would very much like to know what is going on with you and that you are OK.  I'd like to remain your friend.

Take care,


So, according to Barnett I mustn't be "OK" if I am "not communicating" and "playing" with him and others, holding their hands and making certain, like a parent explaining things to his two year old child, that they thoroughly understand what should be my blatantly obvious reasons for doing and saying the things I do....

Can anyone blame me for wanting to have NOTHING to do with these dim-witted rednecks??!!

Despite claiming that I and the other scientifically literate dissidents:

1. "...have some very legitimate concerns and have exerted a tremendous amount of effort trying to persuade others to pay attention to some important information."

(Yeah we have indeed done this, but with no help-and an awful lot of obstructionism, in fact- from dildos like Barnett!)

and that

2. "Some of us also share these concerns"

(As the history above proves, Barnett has made every effort to block the critical analysis of Duesberg, Crowe and the Rethinking AIDS organization that is necessary for the survival of the dissident cause!)

Barnett also claims that my "...efforts, however, can only be described as a colossal FAIL(sic)..."

"Failure" is a relative term in the dissident movement. Until recently, Barnett was vehemently defending David Crowe and his RA organization, but now that Barnett is TAKING the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs again, the ever insightful Crowe has recently called Barnett "insane" for doing so. In light of these facts and all these recent developments, one might feel justified in asking:


As I describe in great detail in this message and in my message above, I GAVE Barnett MORE than enough of a chance to help me and other scientifically literate AIDS dissidents drive David Crowe OUT of the dissident movement. Instead, Barnett, Coogan, Carter and Lance all banded together and ejected ME from the forum I was running, in de facto defense of Crowe who I was heavily criticizing then (and still am, of course). One might feel that, with respect to David Crowe, I am justified in also telling Barnett:


Barnett has also stated that besides "Orthodox trolls... stalking (him) and creating unneeded stress", he finds himself "at odds with some who claim to be dissidents, including some well respected and high profile ones as well" but who, importantly to Barnett, are not "at least also 'poz'..."

This comment really defies logic! This is exactly the same critique of dissidents that has been made by AIDS industry supporters: "many dissidents aren't even 'positive'...". As if one's serostatus has ANYTHING to do with a pursuit of truth! The last time I checked David Crowe is NOT "positive"; neither are Duesberg or Celia Farber. Yet Barnett was very much in sync with these fools and their egregiously flawed efforts in the dissident movement, at least until apparently recently, when Barnett resumed taking the "anti-HIV" drugs.

It's becoming clear that it was actually a HUGE MISTAKE for the dissident movement to allow all these "positive" diagnosed individuals to assume leadership positions, and this practice continues unmitigated to this day, with several moderators at the renamed, hijacked forum being diagnosed "postives". It was a mistake that I myself made more than once in my "career" as an AIDS dissident, since I foolishly made Carter a moderator at the old forum and subsequently gave him permission to make Barnett a moderator. It certainly may seem to make sense from a PR perspective to have "positive" people promoting the dissident cause, and any PR professional with half a brain in his or her head would probably salivate over such a concept. On paper this is a truly fabulous concept. However, what is true in theory is not always true in practice, and repeatedly this idea has proven to be a huge FAILURE.

Those who are still in charge of the dissident movement have never been able to answer the question: what happens when such "positive" dissident leaders get sick or worse?? Obviously, such scenarios have already occurred many times and are, as I write this, CONTINUING to occur in the dissident community, creating tremendous damage for dissidents (can anyone say Karri Stokely??). In fact, one could easily argue that, because of their short-sighted approach, their new hijacked forum has become a breeding ground for sick and dead dissidents. (See update at the top of the first message in this thread).

It is certainly true that there is no proof that any supposedly "positive" dissident who has died has done so while infected with so-called "HIV", but there is also no evidence that we could find that any such dissident who HAS died has ever followed an approach to addressing his or her "positivity" that is aligned with the Perth Group's assertions which they make in their papers and articles and which are supported by published data.

Instead of discussing the latest "olive leaf" and other types of alternative "treatments" and "cures", these dildos would be better advised to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES (charity, after all, does begin at home) and to start advocating for a medical system which accepts (and starts acting upon) the fact that "positive" people are generally more oxidized than their negative counterparts, as the data have repeatedly demonstrated in the scientific literature.

Before resuming the "anti-HIV" drugs, Barnett claimed that I had "chosen to impose exile on" myself by not posting on their new forum! Since it's not obvious to the persistently dense Barnett, I have to stress that the reason I am no longer participating in ANY other forums is because I have seen the profound FAILURE of such venues. I see absolutely NO POINT (but an awful lot of risk) in outreaching to the lay, general public. Again, without a medical system which accepts (and starts acting upon) the fact that "positive" people are generally more oxidized than their negative counterparts, there is NO POINT in outreaching to the general public.

Granted, this material is VERY technical and many lay people simply will not understand it, and even many seemingly "well-informed" lay dissidents lack the intelligence to mount an adequate intellectual challenge to their mainstream doctors. However, even the SMARTEST "positive" LAY person STILL NEEDS an attending physician who is open, willing and ABLE to PROPERLY monitor the patient's redox state. This is simply something that NO member of the lay public can do on his or her own.

Like his fellow forum bandits, Tony Lance displayed a profound level of insight when he justified his participation in the theft of the old forum in an e-mail to a Perth Group supporter on 1 February, 2010:

"The recent squabbles between Brink and RA have really been discouraging to me and others like me who have more at stake in this than bragging rights about being correct or incorrect with regard to a particular theory. The politics, inflated egos, pettiness and infighting are just so goddamn tedious."

Apparently, they weren't "tedious" enough for Lance to stay the hell OUT of the "squabbles"! Also, and this is important enough to emphasize:


To quote the Perth Group:

"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 dissidents, 3 December, 2008)

Prior to the "squabbles" which apparently "discouraged" him, Tony Lance felt the need to write a "paper" about anal sex which made him somewhat famous in the dissident movement. In his paper, Lance cites practically all factors associated with anal sex as contributing to the clinical problems seen in gay male "AIDS" patients. Most of these factors, as Lance himself concedes, have been analyzed and discussed by others prior to his "analysis".

However, a "positive" antibody test result and "AIDS" are directly related to the number of sexual contacts with ejaculation during passive anal intercourse. This, of course implies that semen plays a role in causing both a "positive" test result and "AIDS" and would naturally imply a role for condoms as a step that gay men who practice anal intercourse should take in preventing both a "positive" test result and "AIDS".

Unfortunately, Lance fails to mention these well-documented facts. In his 17-page paper, Lance cites the Perth Group's work but then has the gall to carefully cherry pick quotes from the Perth Group, all the while avoiding any mention of semen or condoms! Perhaps Lance felt that all of the published data on semen are "just so goddamn tedious"?

Lance's theory on anal sex is...ummm... HALF-ASSED because he fails to mention the toxic effects of semen and potential benefits of condom usage. Despite this fact and the fact that it has been very rare historically that an openly gay man would get promoted in RA, Lance and his theory had been promoted within RA by leaders who have repeatedly expressed what I assert is a really clear bias AGAINST condoms. For more information, please see THIS MESSAGE.

Perhaps Lance has or had a similar bias himself prior to experiencing "more than a year of significant health challenges" which were apparently so significant that he felt compelled to start taking the "anti-HIV" drugs?  Also, Lance had another fervent supporter of his theory in conservative homophobe Henry Bauer. Now that Lance is taking the "anti-HIV" drugs, I am not sure if Bauer still supports him or his theory. If Bauer, who also believes in the Loch Ness monster, has withdrawn his support of Lance, it's probably all for the best. Just what the dissident movement needs-yet ANOTHER conservative who hates homos, but THIS one believes in NESSIE, too...(sigh)...

Despite the fact that Lance hasn't even logged into the new forum since 13 May, 2012, his profile has since been updated-presumably by one of the other so-called "team members" to reflect a "demotion" from "team member" to regular "veteran member". I haven't been able to determine if Lance is still held in high esteem by RA and Bauer. I'm also uncertain if Crowe has called Lance "insane" now that Lance has decided to take the "anti-HIV" drugs like Crowe did when he called Barnett insane for doing the same.

Writing on that BASTION of scientific discourse, Facebook, Celia Farber, in a never-ending display of her boundless wisdom, just invoked Lance's approach on "intestinal dysbiosis" which, ironically, Lance himself has since probably disavowed! Of course, it's just a guess since the coward Lance hasn't made ANY statements-at least not publicly-in which he expresses ANY remorse for any of the flawed claims he made before starting the so-called anti-HIV drugs and retreating from the dissident movement entirely almost three years ago with his tail between his legs. And of course, the ever CLUELESS Farber apparently "didn't get the memo" on Lance and his change of heart vis-a-vis the dissident perspective he espoused so publicly for such a long time!

For more information on the hijacking of the old forum, click here. For a history of the old AIDSMythExposed Forum, continue scrolling down to the next message below.

 on: February 07, 2010, 09:23:37 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
LATEST UPDATE: The last "positive" idiot who stole my old forum has now begun taking the so-called "anti-HIV" meds! Brian Carter has revealed on Facebook that he believes there'll "be a time for (going drug free)" once again, but however he concedes that "right now I've decided to comply with doctors orders."! He resisted the meds for quite some time. In fact, out of the 3 forum thieves who are "positive", Carter resisted the longest. Apparently, though, according to his Facebook posts, Carter must have experienced some health challenges earlier this year, including a stay in a hospital. Carter has not posted on the forum he helped to steal from me for a long time. He only posts on Facebook, because he stomped off of the old forum, seemingly pissed after the other two fellow forum thieves who have also been diagnosed "positive" started taking the ARVs themselves a few years back (see more about Carter below). But, hey, ....who needs introspection and insight when one is as dense as all of these assholes are!

The forum that was stolen from me has not only had a rare "dry spell" between deaths of any of its members or leaders, it also has had MANY dry spells between levels of activity of its members. It has gotten so bad that "the sole remaining person from...the hostile takeover of the forums" (his words), Jonathan Barnett, is now asking for members' input into "mothballing" the stolen forum!

As this genius says:

"Some of us, including myself, felt the forums needed to be more civil (human and compassionate?) and a group of us took a strong enough stand against what we perceived to be bullying that we literally performed a hostile takeover of the forums."

Oh BOO-HOO! We are all adults here, I would hope! So I was being forceful.. So WHAT! BIG DEAL! I was also being RIGHT! Let's see how these geniuses' hostile takeover worked. Oh, here we go:

"For more than a year now, I've been considering shelving (stupid, vapid name of their stupid, vapid venue deleted), and making it available as a read-only archive, if that's what the few remaining active members want to do. Just give the word."

Ok, I give THE WORD! In his typical dumb-shit fashion, Barnett is late to realize things. WAAAAAYY LATE! I had PLANNED to SHUT DOWN the damn forum myself about seven years ago, after I realized how utterly FRUITLESS it is to continue interacting with STUPID lay people like these morons on issues as complex and technical as those surrounding "HIV" and "AIDS". However, these idiots stole the forum from under me before I could act to kill it myself. Since their short-sighted takeover of the old forum, they've created mess after stinking mess with their bullshit venue (see below). The most egregious results of their unmitigated ignorance are the MOUNTING deaths and morbidity of their own members (see below), and, ironically, now ALL of the seropositive thieves who stole the forum from me have acquiesced to the AIDS industry and started taking the so-called "anti-virals" themselves! (again, keep reading below.) The fact is, their venue died a long time ago, whether they realize it or not, probably before their own members started ACTUALLY dying. These fools have never learned which way is the right way to address issues surrounding "HIV" and "AIDS", and it should be clear to anyone with half a brain by now that they will NEVER learn. Jonathan Barnett is, though, somewhat on the fence about mothballing the venue, suggesting:

"If we can offer meaningful information and constructive discussion, that is more important to me than large numbers of visitors. Those who are most likely to benefit will find the site and come, if they see serious and thoughtful interaction."

Barnett keeps revealing how dense he is. The fact is, who in their right mind will hang around very long on their forum after they learn that so many members of that forum have died and most of those who haven't are TAKING "ANTI-VIRALS" ANYWAY?? Why would anyone listen to these idiots when they can just go to their orthodox doctors for essentially the same information and outcomes??

Barnett  concedes that his "...personal interest in AIDS dissidence has evolved to issues of minimizing toxicity of drug intervention after patients health and certain immune-related markers has declined (sic) to a certain point. None of this has objective markers... yet. It is all subjective."



"These issues need to have better criteria developed to assist people in making informed decisions."

Ummm...for the millionth time, there ARE such criteria, and the Perth Group have been screaming about adopting the use of such criteria literally FOR DECADES! (See below) Just because Barnett is too STUPID to understand the criteria and too corrupt to promote the Perth Group's ideas on the criteria, doesn't mean these criteria do not exist!!

END OF LATEST UPDATE (older text continued below)

It is now almost three years since the latest "team member" (forum moderator) at the stolen forum DIED! He wasn't one of the original thieves who stole my old forum, but he was a BIG PAIN IN THE ASS! In the wake of his death and the deaths of other former members of the forum and because of other issues I detail below, the stolen forum has become a cyber GHOST TOWN, a virtual shell of its former self. As the saying goes, "It couldn't happen to nicer people." And remember, their purpose for their forum is VERY different from my purpose for this blog (see MY HOME PAGE for more details). So, the fact that they have such pitiful traffic and activity on THEIR forum speaks volumes about their forum's FAILURES. More importantly, the question that should be on the mind of any insightful AIDS watcher from any point on the spectrum of AIDS theories whether orthodox or dissident is:

Which bonehead from the stolen forum might be the next one to end the "dry spell" and join this asshole as the next dunce forced by mother nature into PERMANENT retirement from the AIDS dissident movement??

Read more below......

(First, let me state that I know these are long posts, but, I've always asserted that the beauty of the internet is having the space to say EVERYTHING that is necessary, and it is up to the READER to decide when he or she can devote the time to read everything. Also, please keep in mind that ALL posts on this blog are works IN PROGRESS and, as such, are OFTEN CHANGED AND UPDATED, ESPECIALLY this message. I urge you to check this site and this particular post OFTEN for updates.)

After all the back-stabbing, secretive planning of their coup d etat (or, in their case, coup de TWATS) of the old forum; after all the chest-pumping they did once they committed their theft of the old forum; after all the meaningless bunk about creating a supposedly "safe" place for them and their fellow idiots to keep on "questioning 'AIDS'" until the end of eternity (or until all their "positive" members die or start taking the meds...whichever comes first...??); after the DEATHS of two of their more popular "positive" members; in other words, after more than two years of fashioning their new, stolen forum into the most egregious example of the failure of the AIDS dissident movement since Christine Maggiore, we now have the latest "advancement" from the brilliant team of defenders of David Crowe's Rethinking AIDS group who stole from me the old forum that I used to run that used to be called AIDSMythExposed:

In the spring of 2012, two "positive" members of their OWN "team" of "leaders" started TAKING the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs!

This is NOT a surprising development. Unlike many current AIDS dissidents and in stark contrast to the numerous, short-sighted, ill-advised and cringe-worthy suggestions to the contrary that I now deeply regret which I used to make when I was an active AIDS dissident myself, I now think that the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs SHOULD remain OPTIONS for treatment of those who test "positive" on so-called "HIV tests". Why the HELL NOT?? The ARVs are ALL that the multi-billion dollar AIDS industry has produced. Why the hell shouldn't we dissidents give ARVs a fair chance at actually helping people who've tested "positive"?? Let the chips fall where they may, I say. I have to stress, though, that I obviously vehemently disagree with the claims that are made by the AIDS industry and its supporters surrounding ANY purported "anti-HIV" activity of ANY of these drugs. However, in light of the fact that the patient population which has been administered these drugs has been documented to be more oxidized than the general population, it's always possible that some of these so-called "anti-HIV" drugs may have some reducing (or anti-oxidant) activity. I don't care if an orthodox AIDS researcher were to claim that he has found cheese danish to have anti-oxidant activity in a population of "HIV-positive" people or in those who have been diagnosed with "AIDS". Nothing should be off the table. Even the undeniably toxic AZT could be changed from its current oxidizing formula to a reducing substance if researchers would be open to such a modification.

My assertions are in line with what the Perth Group has written about the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs which, admittedly, isn't a lot of material (see ). Despite the fact that the benefit/risk ratio of these drugs remains unknown, I feel the decision to start taking the drugs is a completely understandable one, especially since-as I discuss below-the medical system is simply not (yet) geared toward-and in fact remains predominantly unaware of-an approach to treatment that is aligned with the Perth Group's theories.

However, when a DISSIDENT decides to leap into such orthodox territory (i.e., to start consuming the so-called "anti-retrovirals"), this warrants an in-depth analysis of his or her past efforts as a dissident, in an effort to avoid any confusion about what that dissident actually did-or did NOT-do prior to finding himself or herself in the position where he or she felt compelled to make the decision to start taking the drugs. Throughout both of their "careers" as AIDS dissidents, each of these incredibly DENSE dissidents took actions which resulted in the suppression of the Perth Group and the theories that the Perth Group has espoused.

As a result of these developments, the other "poz" thief who stole the forum from me, Brian Carter, had stomped off the venue probably some time in late 2012 in apparent (and vehement) disagreement with the idiots who had decided to start taking the drugs....BEFORE he started TAKING the so-called "anti-HIV" meds HIMSELF very recently! In other words, ALL seropositive burglars who stole the forum and were original leaders of the stolen, revamped venue have either exited, like Carter who still posts on other internet venues and Lance who has dropped off the FACE OF THE EARTH (not least not YET), or , in the case of Barnett, who is unfortunately continuing his ill-informed, misguided online postings, his "personal interest in AIDS dissidence has evolved" away from his previous, unwavering support of deceitful David Crowe and the hardline Rethinking AIDS "'HIV is harmless'/NO ARVs ever" bullshit he and so many others were spouting for years "to issues of minimizing toxicity of drug intervention after patients health and certain immune-related markers has declined (sic) to a certain point". ....


AND...this bears repeating:

ALL THREE "seropositive" thieves of the old forum ARE NOW TAKING ARVs!!

The first dissident who started taking "HAART" was at that time, apparently RE-STARTING "HAART". Jonathan Barnett, who had been off the drugs since 2003 had once again STOPPED taking "HAART" in June, 2013, after a year of resuming the drugs in an idiotic, ongoing on-again/off-again approach. (He is now, as of July, 2016 once again TAKING "HAART".) It is clear that "resistance" (Barnett's apparent reference to resisting the "anti-HIV" drugs) has obviously proven to be FRUITLESS for him. Barnett was apparently surprised to learn the Perth Group's advice on treatment, and he provided yet another example of his own profound ignorance when he made the following comments late in 2011 after reading the Perth Group's answer a few months before he resumed taking the "anti-HIV" drugs:

"It wasn't exactly what I expected or wanted to hear, either, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the outcomes of some alternative/experimental therapies, either. The real challenge seems to be finding health practitioners (aka doctors) who actually understand redox...BTW, what are the tests used to measure redox that (The Perth Group) refers to in their answer? Much food for thought, indeed...."

INDEED! ....(sigh)....

NO SHIT SHERLOCK! In fact, it is a PROFOUNDLY difficult challenge to find clinicians "who actually understand redox" and equally challenging to get them to start using "the tests used to measure redox" and prescribing (if necessary) the appropriate reducing agents which positively affect the redox. However, all of these already difficult challenges have been made even MORE difficult by the efforts that have been made by IDIOT lay dissidents like Barnett, Carter and Tony Lance, the other dissident thief who stole the old forum who is now taking the "anti-HIV" drugs. When they were "full-fledged" dissidents, all three of these twits took actions that helped to SUPPRESS the Perth Group's efforts!

Despite the fact that both have claimed to have tried "everything" they could, I could find no evidence that either Barnett or Lance ever used an approach to his "positivity" which is actually aligned with the Perth Group's theories, and, of course, as I just wrote above, there are PLENTY of obstacles which have rendered using such an approach virtually (but not completely) impossible. Barnett has claimed that he has had his "redox state checked, as recommended by (the Perth Group)" in their answer they provided to him (which he links). He claims that his redox state is "within the 'normal range'".

It is highly doubtful that Barnett actually managed to find both a laboratory that can accurately and readily assay his cellular redox and a doctor who is willing to do so without hesitation. It seems as though Barnett is exhibiting his notorious USUAL. This time the poor lad's confusion centers around the "tests" that, as Barnett states, "might be good surrogate markers for an imbalanced redox state". I daresay that they are not any of the tests that Barnett has mentioned, some of which even he himself has called "fairly common". Barnett does not specify precisely what tests were used to have his "redox state checked", but his statement that his "glutathione and selenium levels are either within range, or high" seems to indicate that he thinks that these measurements are indications of the cellular redox!

However, contrary to Barnett's claim, the Perth Group do not actually "recommend" the exact steps that should be performed to check the redox state-nor does the Perth Group even mention glutathione-in their answer to Barnett. In fact, as a rule, the Perth Group do not provide such specific advice in any of their correspondence with lay people. In addition, the Perth Group point out elsewhere:

"The glutathione –SH are not the –SH which determine cellular functioning."

(from: )

It is perfectly understandable-albeit certainly unadvisable-for those who have been diagnosed "positive" to want to run out and experiment on themselves. No one can blame Barnett for doing that. Everyone has a right to try to survive. However, Barnett not only does that, but he persists in publishing all of his experiments in self-treatment. In addition, Barnett repeatedly criticizes the Perth Group for much of his treatment failures. He does this because he is under the mistaken impressions that he has been following the Perth Group's "protocols" and that the Perth Group has PUBLISHED specific protocols in the first freakin' place!

Like a villain from a low-budget horror movie-or maybe like the bunny rabbit from an advertising campaign for a battery company, Barnett keeps coming back with comments that contain gems like the following claim: "In this document, (The Perth Group) clearly proposes the use of particular (non-ARV) anti-oxidants for treatment of 'KS in AIDS patients', and to 'correct immune deficiencies.' For the record, these protocols have also been, and are a part of my own medical regimen."


Apparently, this point needs further emphasizing:

BARNETT HAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ACTUALLY FOLLOWING-AND , AS SUCH, HE IS MOST LIKELY *NOT* FOLLOWING- ANY APPROACH THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED ALIGNED WITH THE PERTH GROUP'S THEORIES! He simply does NOT know what he is talking about!! In fact, *ANYBODY* who is a seropositive lay person and who claims to be "following" the "advice" of the Perth Group is an IDIOT who has NO IDEA what the fuck he or she is talking about!!

While they may be a particular type of anti-oxidant, sulphydryl compounds (SHs) are themselves rather ubiquitous. In the document cited by Barnett, the only instance where the Perth Group mention specific SHs is the following excerpt:

" of us published a paper entitled 'Reducing agents in AIDS - why are we waiting?' Read HERE where the use of antioxidants in particular acetylcysteine and glutathione are advocated for the prevention and treatment of AIDS."

This is an important distinction that needs to be made, especially since it is a common misunderstanding among AIDS dissidents that the Perth Group have "recommended glutathione and NAC", thereby implying that the Perth Group make these recommendations to lay people.

"Reducing agents in AIDS - why are we waiting?", Dr. Val Turner's short letter, was a solo piece he wrote in 1990 before he officially joined the Perth Group. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos did not contribute to that letter. While Turner wrote that "Glutathione is the major transport system in plasma" for cysteine, he also pointed out that "the sulphydryl-containing amino acid cysteine...itself is a major antioxidant."

It should be clear that the primary purpose of Turner's letter simply was to ask "would it not be reasonable to give urgent consideration to trials of therapy and prevention with reducing agents?", AMONG WHICH Turner includes glutathione and NAC. Turner's only statement in the letter that could be viewed as "advocating" any treatment was simply a statement of fact about glutathione and N-acetylcysteine: "There are AT LEAST two reducing substances that are cheap, readily available and virtually devoid of any serious side effects. These are glutathione and N-acetylcysteine...(emphasis added)" A year earlier, Eleni P-E wrote THIS LETTER with her colleagues from the Department of Medical Physics (not including Turner) in which she made more general treatment recommendations.

Also, the "we" in the title of Turner's letter, which was published in The MEDICAL JOURNAL of Australia, refers to CLINICIANS who might be willing and ABLE to structure and execute and, as Turner asked in the letter, "to give urgent consideration to trials of therapy and prevention with reducing agents". Suffice it to say, the physicians who comprise the "we" to whom Turner is referring also should be better able to UNDERSTAND all this technical stuff. It is assumed that the average readers of the Medical Journal of Australia-or, for that matter, of any scientific journal where the Perth Group have published papers-are NOT lay people, ESPECIALLY VERY STUPID lay people like Barnett. Therefore, Turner's "we" is NOT referring to lay people who've tested "positive" and who want to experiment on THEMSELVES and BY THEMSELVES like Barnett clearly does, without the WILLING participation and expert guidance of a physician who has been informed about these crucial issues at the cellular level!

Equally important is the fact that, as the Perth Group clearly and SPECIFICALLY spelled out in their 2011 answer to Barnett, there are some serious problems with many commercial preparations of NAC which NEED to be taken into consideration by attending physicians BEFORE STARTING their patients on therapy with NAC. As a result of these issues, the NAC often "loses much if not all of its anti-oxidant property". In fact, in their answer to Barnett, the Perth Group clearly give him several warnings about come common supplements that are often assumed to be "antioxidants" which are unfortunately often gobbled up like candy by idiots like Barnett. The antioxidant effects of any supplement regimen can only be determined by a competent research laboratory which knows the proper procedures for measuring the (preferably intracellular) -SH levels of the acid-soluble proteins.


It is important here to emphasize that the only data that any of us have on the -SH deficiencies in "HIV-positive" people come from members of the AIDS *ORTHODOXY* who, for still unknown reasons, have chosen to explore -SH levels in such patients. To date-and despite the fact that, again "..the glutathione –SH are not the –SH which determine cellular functioning..." - the ONLY -SH deficiency which has been both documented BY THE ORTHODOXY and corrected by them (via supplementation with NAC) is glutathione -SH (GSH) deficiency.

There was one exception, a study by orthodox researchers Eck et al from 1989 in which the authors found low sulphydryl (SH) levels of the acid soluble proteins IN PLASMA. However, Eck et al. did not do intracellular measurements of the acid-soluble -SH, and they did not attempt to correct the -SH deficiencies they found. Indeed, up til that point, everybody in the orthodoxy "considered the redox was defined by GSH (glutathione)" as the Perth Group point out in THIS ARTICLE. The Perth Group also assert in that document that they "were the only people until then (we will gladly accept correction) to claim that the cellular redox is defined by the SH levels of the acid-soluble proteins, and to consider them extremely clinically significant."  Quite understandably, the Perth Group "found (Eck et al's) findings very interesting." However, since Eck et al in 1989, I do not believe anyone-either orthodox OR dissident-has looked at the SH levels of the acid-soluble cellular proteins in "HIV-positive" humans.

This is the ONLY measurement of ANY value with respect to determining one's "oxidative stress", level of oxidation, or the cellular redox. Ever the dunce, Barnett has only recently conceded that "...'oxidative stress' is a big subject, and there is, apparently, no single marker, or method of testing..." However, what has not yet been able to permeate Barnett's dense skull is the fact that all other methods which Barnett has pursued are either looking at the RESULTS of cellular oxidation, like free radical levels which Barnett has discovered only very recently, or, like with respect to GSH (glutathione) levels, they are detecting levels of -SHs that are EXTREMELY depleted by the time those more generalized measurements appear depleted. It is as though Barnett has a resolute aversion to any of the data that the Perth Group has ever highlighted, despite the fact that he keeps claiming that he has "followed" their "recommendations" and that he "supports the Perth Group".

Back to Eck et al.: two years later, the same authors found "significantly lower mean plasma" acid-soluble -SH in monkeys after those animals were inoculated with a preparation supposedly containing "SIV". The journal Lancet published a letter from the Perth Group in 1991 in which they questioned Eck et al's claims that the low levels they found were "a direct and early consequence of the retroviral infection". Droge (a colleague of Eck's) replied and pooh-poohed the Perth Group's concerns about all the oxidized products in their "SIV" preparations, but he did agree with Perth's claim that "ambiguity could have been largely avoided if extra controls (animals) had been injected with materials prepared in exactly the same way as those for the test animals, from sick but non-SIV-infected macaques". Droge also agreed with the Perth Group "on the basic interpretation that a distorted balance of oxidants and antioxidants may play a key part in the immunopathology of HIV/SIV infection."

Since 1997,  we NOW HAVE data from at least one such trial of NAC and glutathione in "HIV-positive" human patients. However, again, not only is it true that the measurements that Barnett may be getting (glutathione, etc., i.e., the same measurements used by the Herzenbergs in their 1997 study in PNAS) "...are not the –SH which determine cellular functioning..." - as the Perth Group have pointed out in THIS DOCUMENT, but also in that document the Perth Group describe SEVERAL other problems that they see with the efforts that orthodox HIV researchers have made at both detecting and correcting the -SH deficiencies of "positive" patients:

"It is true that many people treat AIDS patients and those at risk of AIDS with 'antioxidants'.  However:

(1)      Most of them do not realise the best known 'antioxidants' may not be antioxidants.

(2)      As far back of 1982 EPE showed that biological function is a non-linear.  It appears that nobody in the AIDS field, including those who treat patients with AIDS, are aware of this.  We have no doubt that if the Herzenberg study (on NAC supplementation and glutathione deficiency) had taken this fact into consideration the results may have been considerably improved.

(3)      Drugs are absolutely necessary to treat AIDS indicator diseases and 'supplements' to correct proven deficiencies.  Lasting health can be obtained only by diet (with very little adjustment a diet can be turned from an oxidising to reducing), avoidance of stress and by cessation of exposure to disease risk factors..." (emphasis added)

(From: )

Apparently, Barnett is also of the opinion that he can just walk into his doctor's office and order a "test used to measure redox" from his doctor, and his doctor will give it to him with no questions asked, just like one orders a Big Mac from the cashier at a freakin' McDonald's!

The fact is, the laboratory methods that will most accurately measure cellular redox are not readily available in a commercial assay!

As such, there is no proof that Barnett did indeed have his "redox state checked, as recommended by (the Perth Group)", and again, it is virtually impossible for him to have done so.

The Perth Group also warn Barnett and others in their answer to Barnett which he acknowledges he has read, that "although vitamin C is an anti-oxidant relative to metals, it is an oxidant relative to sulphydryl (-SH) groups which are the main determinant of cellular redox. Hence, depending on the conditions and dose, vitamin C may act as either a reducing or an oxidising substance. The evidence is that in high doses vitamin C is oxidising." Despite apparently having read these warnings, Barnett remains a fan of ...wait for guessed it!..."high dose IV vitamin C"!

Also, it is NOT Barnett's responsibility to determine the "tests" that "might be good surrogate markers for an imbalanced redox state "nor is it Barnett's responsibility to educate his healthcare providers, i.e., to gather information that he "can share with (his) health care providers to implement treatment strategies that address oxidative stress, for example, which is what TPG argues convincingly is the true cause of AIDS...", as he now writes in late 2013. Here Barnett is being really "redoxulous", to use a word that he himself has coined. That is simply NOT how healthcare is provided under almost all normal circumstances (Super wealthy lay person Michael Jackson paying his doctor for providing him with powerful sleeping aids is one rare exception, and we all know the end result of THAT arrangement!) Contrary to Barnett's assertions, it is NOT true that "if the information can't be simplified, summarized and made understandable to the average reader...", i.e., "...a fifth grader" (such as himself...??), "... it is useless." What IS useless is Barnett's desire as a lay person-and an obviously IGNORANT one, at that- to obtain "a simplified summary of this concept that can be used to help guide the average person's decisions to repair immune dysfunction and if not restore health, at least slow the progression of chronic disease". Actually, those issues are ALL the responsibilities of the PHYSICIANS ATTENDING to Barnett or any other "positive" patient!


The only "dysfunction" that is happening is in the small brains of Barnett and some of his fellow administrators at their forum. They insist upon using the cringe-worthy phrase "immune dysfunction" and then claim that the Perth Group have made claims about "immune dysfunction". However, the Perth Group have NEVER used the phrase "immune dysfunction" in their OWN text in any of their writings, either in the scientific literature or in lay publications or venues. Instead, the only times that the Perth Group has referred to the phrase "immune dysfunction" are in excerpts they've cited of other studies published by orthodox researchers! What those orthodox researchers have meant by the phrase "immune dysfunction" may not be clear or consistent, but nevertheless the Perth Group have always been crystal clear about what the data show is happening in patients who are diagnosed "HIV seropositive", whether or not idiots like Barnett and his friends are capable of understanding the data.

Dissidents have plenty of work to do with respect to educating physicians and researchers on cellular redox without having to focus on educating lay people. As the extensive debate years ago on the British Medical Journal's web site showed, it is difficult enough to get scientists and doctors to understand the issues behind the cellular redox. As I write in the message below, even the SMARTEST "positive" LAY person STILL NEEDS an attending physician who is open, willing and ABLE to PROPERLY monitor the patient's redox state.

Furthermore, if, as Barnett is now claiming in late 2013, he is now "convinced" that oxidative stress "is the true cause of AIDS", which is his idiotic layman's interpretation of what the Perth Group has been claiming, why the fuck is he always doing and saying things that compromise the Perth Group and this assertion?

In addition, it needs to be pointed out that NONE of the Perth Group's "published work" is found ONLY on this (the site! This is yet another profoundly ignorant statement of Barnett's! ALL of the Perth Group's "published" work IS posted on THEIR web site which is at on a page on that site which is SPECIFICALLY titled "Papers and letters published in scientific journals"! The Perth Group's ARTICLES and documents that ARE ONLY found on THIS site  ( have NOT been "published" in ANY other venue-either scientific or lay publication. More important, these documents on the TIG site are POLITICAL efforts written to assert a correct scientific view of the data which is the view espoused by the Perth Group. The fact that some of the Perth Group's documents that "can be found only on the TIG website" also delve into scientific issues is SECONDARY to the primary mission behind the documents, and that is, the exposure of the shortcomings and scientific blunders of the RA and Duesberg contingents of dissidents. The inclusion by the Perth Group of scientific rationale for their criticisms in these documents does not make the documents "scientific" documents, and the Perth Group has never submitted any of these "TIG-only" documents FOR publication in any scientific journals nor in any other LAY venue, for that matter! Unlike yours truly, the Perth Group still believes-often to their own detriment-that it is helpful to try to explain these difficult scientific issues to IDIOT lay people like Barnett!

However, there is a long-time supporter of the Perth Group who has himself been diagnosed "positive" who has proven to be INFINTELY smarter than Barnett or Lance and who is now himself considering starting the so-called "anti-HIV" meds. He relayed the following astute observations in a private e-mail:

"I still believe the Oxidative Stress (OS) theory, put so well by TPG (The Perth Group), is what lays behind ill health and that the 'HIV' test when positive is a bumbling and v general marker for existing or potential ill health in a significant percentage of people who react to the test.
Sadly as we know further differential diagnostic testing rarely gets done and no measures to determine a persons oxidative state, let alone the use of reducing agents in those with OS."

These were all issues that I was HOPING to promote and discuss in great detail on the old AME forum, before the halfwits Barnett and Lance STOLE the forum from me!

You see, kids: AIDS dissidents have a substantial DOUBLE WHAMMY obstacle which has been blocking our progress for far too long. Unfortunately, I only realized this fairly LATE in my "career" as a dissident, and as such, I feel sincerely compelled to state that

I REGRET EVERYTHING I did as an AIDS dissident up until about the middle of the year 2009.

It's just easier for me to make such a blanket statement of regret as opposed to trying to pick and choose the things I did which were good out of all the things which I regret I did over my many years as an active AIDS dissident.

The thing which I finally realized better late than never is, in a nutshell: Even if one is fortunate enough to find a QUALIFIED physician who is willing to explore (and who is KNOWLEDGEABLE enough about) APPROPRIATE alternative therapies, that doctor still needs to find a COMPETENT laboratory which is able to CORRECTLY perform the procedures that are needed in order to assess the patient's cellular redox.

Barnett does concede: "I'm not nearly as smart as you guys are. I have not found 'the answer' and know what to believe. I just have questions and uncertainties. I know it bothers you that I don't just accept your arguments, based on 'the science' of a group of researchers in Perth."

Ignorance per se is forgivable. However, my point is:

why do these idiots (even those who CONCEDE they are not as smart as others) continue to take steps that SUPPRESS the efforts of those of us who have clearly DEMONSTRATED our understanding of these issues...?? Why can't these idiots just run along and let us adults do our work??

Since it is still unclear to Barnett:

As much as it may hurt him to learn, this is not about Barnett or any individual dissident. I'm not maintaining this site for the benefit of AIDS dissidents, nor do I care to make friends with any dissident. I find most dissidents insufferably ignorant and useless, and the movement would be well advised to purge itself of many of these buffoons. In fact, I disagree with most dissidents on their PRIMARY, fatally wrong presumption vis-a-vis strategy. That is, as someone who has been dealing with these issues since 1995 among both lay people AND professionals with advanced degrees,

I simply do not agree that these issues should be the domain of lay people!!

The second guy, Tony Lance, became famous within the dissident movement (and infamous outside the movement) during HIS dissident "career" by proposing and promoting a theory about anal intercourse in which he provided a rather selective look at the data on this topic. However, he began taking the "anti-HIV" drugs-apparently for the first time-in 2012 after experiencing what he has called "more than a year of significant health challenges".

After unfortunately leaving his readers with such inane statements like: "Everything about my own experience confirms that being well-informed has been the best course of action" and "At this point in my journey, I have problems with the mainstream AND the dissident points of view. I think the truth and the solutions are somewhere in the middle..." (!), Lance abandoned the dissident cause (HINT: Maybe Barnett should do so, TOO!). Barnett's announced "retirement" from the new forum was only a retirement from the administrative duties of moderating that venue. Barnett, unfortunately, is still posting his drivel on that venue and elsewhere.

Unlike Barnett, Lance has run away from public dissident discourse with his proverbial tail between his legs, despite his achieving his aforementioned "fame" within the dissident movement and without offering any apology for having espoused the things he espoused which made him such a "famous" dissident. Lance has not even logged in to the new forum since May, 2012.

It needs to be stressed that no one has forced any of these imbeciles to take public roles in the AIDS dissident movement in the first place. They all decided to do that on their own, and they chose to fashion themselves into public spokespeople for the dissident cause in spite of the fact that they obviously lack the ability to comprehend these technical issues.

They also lack personal responsibility.

I looked, but I could find no evidence that either of these two dildos has decided to do the right thing with respect to their past -and in Barnett's case, PRESENT and unfortunately ONGOING-advocacy. To the best of my knowledge, neither has decided to offer a PUBLIC apology for having disseminated information which they now apparently believe to have been wrong. Instead these idiots are now advocating this RADICAL change in their approach to their OWN treatment as if their well-documented dissident advocacy from recent years has vanished into thin air. (Unfortunately for them-and for everyone else involved in AIDS discourse, it HASN'T).

In recent years, Barnett has been embracing the varying theories and treatment suggestions of different dissidents, OTHER THAN the Perth Group, of course.  One such so-called "dissident" is Marco Ruggiero, who is supposedly a "dissident" and supposedly a "scientist" among whose assertions about "HIV" and "AIDS" is "HIV is not the 'sole' cause of AIDS". For more information on Ruggiero and the many problems with him, please see THIS MESSAGE, and pay particular attention to THIS ANALYSIS of Ruggiero's pet treatment.

Most recently, in his pursuit of "anyone-but-the-Perth-Group", Barnett continues to sing the praises of a German doctor in the same article in which he-Barnett-claims that the Perth Group has "convincingly" argued that oxidative stress "is the true cause of AIDS". Yet, Barnett is too stupid to realize that the German doctor is one of many AIDS dissident "scientists" who have mangled and bastardized the Perth Group's work! The German doctor is making treatment recommendations WITHOUT regard to the oxidising effects of those treatments, like many of the treatment recommendations that Barnett himself has chosen to follow thus far. Also, there is absolutely no need to focus on the issues the German doctor is using for purposes of monitoring patients because those measurements appear to be *EFFECTS* of an underlying mechanism which, as the Perth Group have proposed, appears to be oxidative stress. Furthermore, as the Perth Group have stated: "There is no evidence which proves that T4, T8, Th1, Th2 cells have unique immunological functions" (Source: ) and practically since the beginning of their contributions to the scientific AIDS literature, the Perth Group have also correctly asserted that "...the T4 cells, and thus their subsets, play no role in the development of the AIDS indicator diseases" (Source: ) (It is widely claimed by both the AIDS orthodoxy and AIDS dissident factions OTHER THAN the Perth Group that Th1 and Th2 cells represent subsets of T4 cells).

Before Barnett and the other dimwits stole the old forum from under me and turned it into the ship of fools it is today, I had already taken the first steps in the process of converting that forum to a private blog-like venue which I was planning to CLOSE to comments from the public (like this one now is) by banning several members who I deemed repeatedly guilty of spreading flawed information on the old venue.

SPEAK OF THE DEVIL: on 13th October, 2013, the latest mortal embarrassment for their contingent of dissidents occurred when one of their fellow "team members" (or forum moderators to those of us who are NOT in HIGH SCHOOL!) had at long last passed away. This guy was an unbelievably ignorant and arrogant asshole who always operated-like Barnett continues to think- under the mistaken impression that his situation and health history are synonymous with-and could be extrapolated to-other unfortunate souls who have tested "positive". He also once boasted that, when he returned to the old forum I moderated (after he resigned in "protest" over what he alleged was my "reign of tyranny"), my "former subjects greeted (him) like a roomful of puppies whose master had been away too long." I don't think those "puppies" are quite so enthusiastic in their support of their now"master" anymore. In fact, the death of this dim-witted dissident "guru" has cast a very noticeable and significant chill on the postings to the forum that was stolen from me which he eventually co-moderated along with fellow dim-witted dissident Barnett. Although he did not participate directly in the theft of the old forum from me like Barnett did, this horribly confused, stubborn and now-deceased prick is someone who I mention in further detail as the "inbred Texan bandleader" in THIS THREAD. It's just too overwhelmingly tragic that mother nature's efforts appear to be the only efforts that are proving successful in finally getting these dumb fucks to


It has become obvious that mother nature's efforts will be most likely the only efforts that will prove successful in getting Barnett to STFU as well. He has become a staunch post-mortem defender of the aforementioned incredibly DENSE and now-deceased piece of shit from Texas. Barnett continues to recount not only his own "experiences" as what he has called an "Affected" person (Barnett's useless term he invented for seropositive people), he also has most recently revealed many details of his now-deceased inbred friend's life and death.

It is my opinion that, in addition to their ongoing, well-documented and short-sighted suppression -whether overt OR implicit- of the Perth Group and Perth's theories, these moronic dissidents have made-and continue to make-SERIOUS mistakes with respect to their own approaches to treatment. Certainly, dissident history right up until the recent past has shown us that the inevitable outcome for many such "positive" dissidents is bad. Barnett, who was hospitalized not too long ago-and quite possibly Lance, too, may be well on their way to joining the ever-growing group of aforementioned seropositive supporters of Rethinking AIDS and Duesberg, such as Christine Maggiore and many others before and after her, whose most "meaningful" contributions to AIDS discourse were their own premature deaths. And suffice it to say, supporters of the AIDS orthodoxy invariably like to blame said premature deaths on....wait for it....YES, "HIV" and "AIDS".

Obviously, though, these deaths only become TRULY meaningful if lessons are actually LEARNED from them. I am always glad, however, when I am afforded the opportunity to offer my insights on these developments as a crucial way of both elucidating the efforts made by the Perth Group and us Perth Group supporters as well as pointing out that these efforts made by these other dissidents from other factions are NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PERTH GROUP.

Barnett continues to write about the dead inbred dissident despite the fact that, as a shrewd, scientifically literate Perth Group supporter already pointed out to Barnett:

"You and (dead inbred's name deleted) are not in fact representative of a massive swathe of ‘Affecteds’ since both of you have recounted life-long ill-health pre-dating a ‘HIV’ test by many decades. That makes your experiences not at all automatically meaningful for those without that experience."

Actually, in all honesty, the experiences of MANY now-deceased AIDS dissidents are equally meaningless and "not in fact representative of a massive swathe of" seropositive people, and, as this keen observer of Barnett's actions also has observed, the belief that Barnett apparently has that his (Barnett's) experiences have "any generalised bearing is arrogant as well as unscientific". Despite whatever verbiage they may have written to the contrary, Barnett apparently believes-as his now-deceased inbred friend also believed-that, just because something MAY HAVE worked for him based on his own experiences, it MUST be advisable for EVERYBODY else to try what he has tried. Among the many things that Barnett fails to comprehend is something that his dead inbred friend never realized and that is the fact that, while he may think he is giving specific advice to those "affected" by a seropositive diagnosis, his recommendations which he has formulated with the help of numerous "alternative" and orthodox healthcare practitioners are merely replacing an arbitrary set of recommendations that are made by supporters of the AIDS orthodoxy with a set of equally arbitrary recommendations. Again, as I have repeatedly stressed above:

The most meaningful measurements of a seropositive person's blood are NOT being taken by ANYONE in the medical field, whether orthodox physician OR "alternative" practitioner.

Foolishly, Barnett reached out while his inbred idiot friend lay in a hospital bed just hours away from death for help from...wait for it...David Crowe and his contingent of dissidents. Despite the fact that Crowe has recently called Barnett "insane" for resuming the so-called "anti-HIV" meds, Barnett turned to his now-enemy Crowe and other Crowe associates perhaps if for no other reason than, as Barnett claims, "they are the most accessible and responsive people in the U.S."! LOL!  From Crowe and his fellow dildos, Barnett was "seeking advice and assistance, specifically about the opportunity to examine (Barnett's soon-to-be-dead inbred friend's) tissue for actual HI-virus using electron micrography." Barnett was pursuing help from Crowe and his ilk on this particular issue despite what the Perth Group has repeatedly pointed out is the RA contingent's colossal FAILURE to understand the complexities of the issue of electron microscopy (see: for more insights into EM and why Crowe's people are completely out-to-sea on that issue).

Of course, as Barnett now concedes "In hindsight, my efforts were a waste of time." Now, THERE we agree! LOL In fact, as Barnett still resolutely fails to comprehend (despite the rather persistent, yet gentle prodding of that aforementioned scientifically literate Perth Group supporter):


I GAVE dim-witted Barnett MORE THAN ENOUGH opportunity to join me **SEVEN FREAKIN' YEARS AGO** in criticizing Crowe and his horribly ineffective and self-imposed leadership of the AIDS dissident movement. Despite this, Crowe continued to receive Barnett's support-at least de facto support-in that, for YEARS, Barnett REFUSED to criticize Crowe, until Crowe called Barnett "insane" for starting the so-called "anti-HIV" meds. Barnett is now a Johnny-come-lately with his criticisms of Crowe which are too little and too freakin' LATE! Also, as usual with Barnett, his efforts at criticizing Crowe are misguided and informed by Barnett's own stubborn and profound IGNORANCE of the technical issues he has NEVER understood.

As I mentioned, the forum which Barnett helped to steal from me is now VERY dormant and is being kept alive largely by Barnett's vapid posts. As one of Barnett's critics pointed out to him on the decaying stolen forum: "there's only one post in a blue moon in this clinically dead forum you so poorly moderate." The dead inbred made a habit of bitching to me about my so-called "censorship" on the old forum. I find it ironic-one might even say HYPOCRITICAL-that these assholes running the stolen forum are constantly censoring THEIR "subjects" and usually THEIR censorship is for trivial things like "name-calling". This is all in an effort to make their venue a "safe" place for their members to keep "questioning" AIDS into infinity, I'm guessing. However, I fail to see how a forum like theirs could be considered "safe" when so many of their members-AND MODERATORS- are DYING or getting sick. It seems as though the forum operators' concern about the "safety" of their venue is extremely misplaced!

Barnett and his band of fellow low-watt bandits have had more than six years with their own venue, and all that these profoundly stupid know-it-alls have to show for their efforts is an increasing level of morbidity among themselves plus an embarrassingly growing number of DEAD and sick rank-and-file forum members. Meanwhile, the unstoppable and unfortunately increasing popularity of Facebook has greatly diminished the purported "need" (which Barnett and some other equally stupid dissidents unfortunately still believe exists) for other public, non-Facebook venues like their stolen forum.

Instead of stepping out of the public arena which is what they SHOULD do, many of Barnett's critics in the AIDS dissident movement-including Crowe himself and many of his supporters-have unfortunately migrated to Facebook. There, they are behaving much like Barnett is himself in his posts on his own blog and on the stolen forum, essentially like proverbial "stewardesses" attempting to fly proverbial jetliners (See: for more on this phenomenon which would be laughable only if some seropositive people were not listening to these morons.) Rome is CLEARLY burning here in the AIDS dissident movement. The AIDS dissident movement-specifically, the dominant, Rethinking AIDS-supported Duesberg faction of the dissident movement- is not unlike the Nixon White House, circa late July, 1974, gasping out its last breaths yet utterly CLUELESS about what is actually happening in the real world!

Truthfully, the fact is there is NO NEED for ANY type of public forums for the AIDS dissident cause. ANYONE in charge of ANY internet forum devoted to AIDS from ANY perspective-dissident OR ORTHODOX-needs to do the right thing and


IMHO, "positive" people who are STUPID enough to seek FREE medical advice and FOLLOW such medical advice that is posted by ANYONE on ANY such forum (ESPECIALLY on a Facebook venue) without having a direct, in person discussion with a qualified healthcare practitioner about such medical advice should keep in mind the following:


...just my .02


It might help readers if I explain what happened to the old AIDSMythExposed forum and reveal exactly who are the "lo-watt bandits" who executed the hijacking of the old forum or, as I call this action, the "Coup de TWAT".

The first twat to be discussed is Brian "Clueless" Coogan, web host from Melbourne, Australia:

Web host Coogan may be tall but he's rather short-sighted, weak-willed and..well just plain CHICKEN SHIT. Coogan is the most powerful of all of Rethinking AIDS President David Crowe's clowns who committed the hostile takeover ONLY because he has been hosting the site--but only because I eventually "hired" him to host the old forum (for no pay, of course).

Compared to yours truly, ALL of these hijacking twits are Johnnies-come-lately. When Coogan's first interaction with others as a dissident occurred it was hardly the dark ages of AIDS dissidence; actually it was probably circa 2004!. Yet he believes he is more qualified to know what is best for the dissident movement than someone who's been a dissident since the mid-1990's (yours truly). According to their own posts in the archives of the forum, "old church ladies" Carter and Barnett apparently did not become AIDS dissidents, either, until well into the 21st century.

Furthermore, when I met Coogan in person in the U.S., I met him at his workplace when he was here. He taught computer classes at "Messiah College", a "Christian" school. I found it a little odd that a gay man would be teaching at a Christian school, and I was more than a little creeped out by that fact. (I remember rolling my eyes when I saw his ISP-""-appear on our web site's sitemeter statistics page!)

OH CHRIST, he's a fucking JESUS FREAK, I thought to myself!!

Now, as of 2016, creepy cooky Christ freak Coogan says on his Facebook page that he is "Co-Director" of an organization that is "an affiliate" of some entity called "The Reformation Project" which describes itself as "a network of Christians wanting to promote and explore LGBTI inclusion, theology and faith in a safe and informed environment" and which ostensibly "exists to foster a confident and informed conversation about Christian faith, gender and sexuality while effectively challenging homophobic, biphobic and transphobic theology and culture in Australia."

In other words, in addition to hosting the stolen, worthless forum, creepy Coogan runs a religious, Christian organization that is probably more focused on-and infinitely more SUCCESSFUL at-bringing Christianity to lesbian/gay/trans people than it is at "challenging homophobic, biphobic and transphobic theology and culture"!

And speaking of "MESSIAH":

It is my belief that Coogan and the rest of these dildos all have profound cases of Messiah complexes. Unfortunately, they are hardly alone among their AIDS dissident peers. Sometimes a Messiah complex is not a major problem, but when medical advice is being dispensed regularly by those who are experiencing Messiah complexes like Coogan and his fellow idiots are, this could lead to problems.

I kept resisting using Brian Coogan as host for the AME forum for three years after meeting him at Messiah College until I felt compelled to give him the go ahead, simply because MSN was terminating its forums service and we HAD to move the AME forum SOMEWHERE.

When he first encountered the excellent critical work of Anthony Brink who exposed the serious problems with Rethinking AIDS and its President Crowe, Coogan idiotically claimed that Brink's discussion was "seriously damaging to Anthony Brink’s otherwise (deservedly) excellent reputation, in particular..."

I'll concede I am no legal scholar, but Coogan's concern about libel liability seems poorly justified. However, Coogan's forum has had a close and continuous association with Crowe's "Rethinking AIDS" group which has only been tempered VERY recently by Johnny-come-lately Barnett's too little, too late criticisms of Crowe. Specifically, Coogan should have infinitely more concern about liability over the fact that he and his fellow "team members" (what, are we back in HIGH SCHOOL??!!) have, in addition to dispensing the aforementioned medical advice,  repeatedly posted and promoted the egregiously flawed brochure that RA has produced which they've called "The AIDS Trap." For a thorough analysis of this pamphlet, please see THIS MESSAGE.

More vacuous drivel from stupid, naive Coogan:

...the problem comes when valid questions are mixed in with personal abuse; once the line is crossed it's hard to know how to respond without getting drawn into a conversation that really doesn't help anyone.

I have no doubt that some of Rod's questions were entirely valid, and I look forward to hearing them discussed. I think it's fair to say that unanswered questions existed on both sides.

On a related point, there's no doubt in my mind that RA needs to grow and change... On the other hand, neither is <whatever the opposition is called> perfect.

Let's not tear down the one organization that is making a consistent effort; instead, how about backing it up and giving it a go, and where areas for growth exist, let's talk about how we can encourage RA in those directions.

There's a complete difference between attacking an organization and calling on it to grow or move forward; you'll find that most attacks will not bring any growth or change, regardless of whether they're "correct" or not. Any group will take time to change and the most powerful way to call them to do that is to help them create a future and move into it.

There was an earlier thread which Coogan deleted in its entirety from the old forum. To read the thread which Coogan thought was unfit to be posted on the old forum, please see this message. In short-sightedly deleting this crucial thread, Coogan gave the following lame explanation in an e-mail dated 11th August, 2009:

"Please understand that this is a business decision.  I’m not qualified to determine the veracity or otherwise of any of the claims.  I just can’t have this sort of stuff on our servers as it could impact the livelihood of my team, who are immensely important to myself and the business."

Despite the fact that Coogan himself conceded previously that he is "not qualified to determine the veracity or otherwise of any of the claims", five months later Coogan wrote the following brilliant insights n a private e-mail to me the day before he took control of the AME site:

I’m all behind promoting the Perth Group, they’re heroes in my mind, but not at the expense of pulling down anyone else, RA included.  Nobody has it perfect, the ideas should stand on their own merit, rather than needing to attack others to get a hearing....While there might be grounds for the disagreement, this is not the way to get a hearing...

There's Coogan, a web site designer and host by trade who did not enter the dissident movement until well into the 21st century, judging the Perth Group, the most brilliant scientific minds of the dissident movement and dismissing their strategy of attacking the achilles heel of the AIDS industry, the missing virus, so-called "HIV". Anyone who has actually taken the time to review all the evidence that is at and still holds the above opinions expressed by Coogan is either mentally impaired or a pathological liar.

Later on, in 2013, Coogan was foo

 on: February 07, 2010, 09:07:23 PM 
Started by Rod Knoll, blogger - Last post by Rod Knoll, blogger
Before exploring the rest of this blog, please be sure to thoroughly read everything on OUR HOME PAGE.

Rod Knoll,
AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog

Pages: 1 ... 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!