AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2016, 03:29:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
48 Posts in 31 Topics by 191 Members
Latest Member: oakleya18
* Home Help Login Register
+  AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog
|-+  AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog
| |-+  AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog
| | |-+  "I REALLY, REALLY DON'T CARE" what DEAD or SICK RA supporters said or wrote!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: "I REALLY, REALLY DON'T CARE" what DEAD or SICK RA supporters said or wrote!  (Read 9431 times)
Rod Knoll, blogger
Sr. Member
Posts: 45

See my signature and custom title information.

« on: February 07, 2010, 09:36:10 PM »

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

« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 12:02:58 PM by Rod Knoll, blogger » Logged

Rod Knoll has been an AIDS dissident since 1995 and a long-time supporter of the Perth Group ( Rod is now exclusively focusing on exposing the damage done by other groups of AIDS dissidents. Rod's history as a dissident is at: (click link)
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!