Clark Baker Wrong on Science? Naturally. But Wrong on the Law, too?

It is not surprising that Mr. Baker has such a poor grasp of science. After all, he has no formal training, education or experience in any scientific discipline. However, it is really sad that he also has such a poor grasp of the law. Mr. Baker was with the LAPD for 20 years and has been a Private Investigator for about ten years and he has been working on criminal HIV cases since 2009. It is unforgivable for him to be so wrong on the law.

For example, take a look at this statement he wrote when discussing the Eneydi Torres case:

“Torres was complicated by a competent defense attorney and a recent US Supreme Court ruling that requires prosecutors to prove that HIV tests are reliable and that defendants are actually infected with an infectious disease.” (bolding by Baker)

The SCOTUS ruling Baker links to is that of Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts. That ruling is strictly about forensics testing certificates and the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment. It does not address diagnostic testing generally and has absolutely nothing to do with HIV test reliability or infectious disease specifically. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Zip. This resource is specifically dedicated to that case:

The issue presented in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (No. 07–591) was:

Whether a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is ‘testimonial’ evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

Also from that site:

On June 25, 2009, in a 5 to 4 opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that certificates of forensic analysis are “testimonial” and “the Sixth Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits.” Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2542 (2009) (No. 07–591).

Just how it is that Mr. Baker came to such an erroneous conclusion is perplexing to say the least. Unless, of course, this is another example of Mr. Baker saying whatever he wants to say in order to perpetuate his agenda with complete disregard for the facts.

Perhaps this is why Mr. Baker had so many completely wrong opinions during the live blog of the 2011 Andre Davis Case.  During that live blog Mr. Baker continually and erroneously stated that the person(s) who “tested and diagnosed” Andre Davis is/are not in court to testify and therefore Davis can not “confront his accusers”.  He also kept saying that the “persons” (Medical Technologists) who performed the HIV tests at Quest are Davis’ accusers.

The only thing that Baker got right is that it is the 6th Amendment that allows defendants to face their accusers. And in the case of Andre Davis it is the women with whom Mr. Davis slept that are his accusers and those women were in the court to testify and to be cross examined. Yet Mr. Baker continually said it was everyone involved in the testing:

  • Unless prosecutors deliver the witnesses who collected, packaged, transported, opened, and tested the biological samples, the evidence is meaningless.
  • There is a basic 6th Amendment issue here… defendants have a right to cross-examine their accusers… In this case, his accusers are those who allege he’s infected with HIV.
  • The prosecutor had six months to prepare this case…any idea why she couldn’t find the doctor and techs who performed the tests?

Mr. Baker is conflating those who do the testing with those who are the actual accusers and in this case, it is the victims who slept with the defendant. I hate to use the term “victim” but that is the correct word for the women who were subjected to a potentially deadly virus by sleeping with Mr. Davis without the knowledge that Davis was HIV positive. And for Baker to say the defendant is the victim is not just factually wrong, it is morally wrong as well. Whatsmore, we see that Mr. Baker still does not understand the ruling of Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts.

But this is not the first nor the last time that Mr. Baker makes such false and improper accusations. Even in the comment section at the military blog about Sgt David Gutierrez last month, Mr. Baker makes similar false and erroneous statements:

In another high profile case in Atlanta this year, doctors all testified that the labs diagnosed our client, while all the Quest and LabCorp officials insisted that the doctors diagnosed him.  The Clayton County jury convicted our client, who was sentenced to ten years in prison – even though the record showed that our asymptomatic client was never diagnosed by anyone.

Here Baker is simply trying to sew doubt where none exists. A laboratory is never and has never been an entity to “diagnose” anyone. Ever. Laboratories, (and in this case, as with all HIV criminal cases, we are talking about diagnostic labs and not forensic labs), are simply the place where the testing is done. It is a doctor who would make the diagnosis. Baker is obviously trying to make some sort of blame-shifting game in an attempt to discredit the lab and the doctors all at once. It is silly and transparent. Also, Baker does not link to any proof of such a silly allegation. Why does Mr. Baker not supply a transcript in the case with the specific section highlighted? After all, Mr. Baker was part of the defense team. He could easily get such proof. Alas, that proof only exists in Baker World.

That is not the only way Mr. Baker tries to discredit the testing process and those involved. Notice how Baker describes them as “unknown and untested third parties”. He did it in the Andre Davis case and he does it again at the military blog regarding Sgt David Gutierrez. It is also another example of Mr. Baker’s extreme hypocrisy I discussed in the previous post. Mr. Baker became indignant that a commenter called him and his co-horts “AIDS Denialists”. Mr. Baker said this statement was meant to “dehumanize” them. Yet Mr. Baker went even further in his later comment about the Medical Technologists who perform the diagnostic tests:

Blood is drawn by unknown people and transported to a testing facility where other lab rats run tests that look for proteins that all of us are born with.

Here Baker not only dehumanizes the Medical Technologists, he calls them rodents. It is silly, I agree. But it is one more great example of his hypocrisy.

That statement also gives us another example of Mr. Baker not understanding science. He says that the HIV tests “look for proteins that all of us are born with.” This is hogwash. It is also a shortened version of what Mr. Baker tried to pull in the comment section of Myles Power’s youtube video part II debunking House of Numbers. In the comments Baker was trolling as “Rick Haines”. (Which is another of example of Baker’s hypocrisy because he accuses those who use “anonymous” and fake names to be part of Big Pharma etc just as he did at the military blog: Anon81 (and associates) make their claims anonymously because, if they did so publicly, we would know that his employers are funded largely by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry,…) NOTE: Yes, I have two comments by “Rick Haines” that prove he is Baker but they are too long to post here.

Back to the youtube page where Baker, er, I mean “Rick Haines” says:

Rick Haines

+The Snout That was a very funny story… are you calling yourself David Regev today or still using Kevin Kuritzky?As for P24, that protein represents a “family” of common proteins found in yeast and the cells of at least ten other mammals, including mice.  They are implicated in biosynthetic protein transport and have a possible role in the formation of specialized structures within cells (called “organelle morphogenesis”).  P24 plays a role in insulin transport and function as receptors, regulate vesicle biogenesis, perform structural and morphogenetic functions in the secretory pathway and are responsible for quality control of transported proteins.  They are subdivided into four subfamilies (p24α, β, γ and δ).  Animals and fungi have representatives of each of the four subfamilies.  Plants have members of the p24β and p24δ subfamilies.

The p24 family consists of eight p24 members in yeast, nine in Drosophila, 11 in Arabidopsis, ten in Xenopus, and ten in mammals.  The p24γ subfamily is common among vertebrates, (including humans).  In mice, eight out of the ten p24s were “ubiquitously expressed.”

So as you can see, EVERYONE reading this post has the P24 protein – and probably ate a few meals recently containing the protein as well.

SNOUT corrects him thusly:

The Snout

No, Rick. The eukaryote golgi transport glycoproteins designated p24 are completely unrelated to the HIV-1 capsid protein p24. They have completely different amino acid sequences. The only thing they have in common is that they are both proteins (hence the “p”) and they are both approximately 24 kiloDaltons in weight (hence the “24”)
Even though Mr. Baker has been given the proof that p24 is not what he claims it to be, he continues to give false information.
Mr. Baker gets more science wrong at the military blog. Baker writes:
As for antibodies, HIV tests don’t detect HIV or antibodies – they detect common proteins that the “experts” claim identify HIV – even though the same proteins are common among all human. But even if we are to BELIEVE the HIV antibody theory, antibodies demonstrate a body’s ability to defend itself from infection. The fact that I have antibodies from last year’s flu doesn’t mean that I am infected with the flu now. 
Here Baker gets the most basic, rudimentary immunology wrong. Antibodies to the flu do not hang out in your body for a year. That is not how antibodies work. I thought I cleared that up for Mr. Baker in this post. Antibodies do not persist indefinitely in the human body. That is what Memory B-Cells are for. Those cells “remember” the foreign antigen and produce a new round of antibodies if the invader is reintroduced to your body.
I have shown in multiple posts that Mr. Baker is wrong about science. But for him to be so wrong on the law is absurd and unforgivable.

Please Sign Petition to Help Lt. Col. Kenneth Pinkela Overturn a Wrongful Conviction

This is a military case that was botched for many reasons, not least of which it was one of Clark Baker’s 5 trial losses. Now Lt. Colonel Kenneth Pinkela has a chance to get proper counsel and right this wrong. Please help by signing this petition that has over 40K signatures.

Clark Baker Makes Admission That Destroys His Credibility

I love when Mr. Baker gets on a roll at one of his websites or on facebook or in the comment section of an article or website discussing HIV. This time Mr. Baker has outdone himself and given me an early Christmas present straight from the arms of baby Jesus. On December 12th Mr. Baker left a string of comments at this military website discussing the case of Sgt David Gutierrez that lead the moderator to close the comments because they were so wildly off-topic.

Mr. Baker goes through the same, old, tired litany of conspiracy drivel that has become a staple of his rhetoric. I will not enumerate them here as you can read them for yourself at the link. However, I found several places where Mr. Baker proves that he is not an objective, unbiased investigator but has an ingrained theory that completely ignores the established science. Most importantly I found several specific statements where he not only contradicts himself in a big way, but he also exposes his extreme bias and therefore his hypocrisy. These contradictions clearly highlight that Mr. Baker has an agenda to perpetuate his AIDS Denial via the court system.

In his first comment at 1:16 pm, Baker writes these two statements:

In the numerous military cases that the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice (OMSJ) has assisted in, we found that NONE of the accused HIV+ servicemembers were ever competently tested or diagnosed for HIV.”


“In the numerous cases where OMSJ examined the blood of these servicemembers, OMSJ found no evidence of clinical symptoms (in their medical record) or HIV in their blood.”

Then at 7:39 pm Mr. Baker gives this answer to another commenter who asks what tests should be used to detect HIV:

“With regard to what test a real investigator would approve to detect HIV, that doesn’t exist because the first proof doesn’t exist.”

That is what Oprah would call and Ah Ha moment. It is no wonder then that Baker and his “experts” with OMSJ and the HIV Innocence Group always come to the same conclusion with each and every examination of a client’s medical records. It should also be noted that Baker says “…OMSJ examined the blood of these servicemembers…”  I for one would love to know how Baker examined this blood and where the results are. Perhaps we get a glimpse of this in his next comment.

At 8:14 pm Mr. Baker further contradicts himself as well as opening the door for many more questions:

“Several years ago, OMSJ conducted a series of experiments using blood and cultured HIV.  We drew samples of my blood, spun it, and spiked it with the cultured HIV, which was easily found by using electron microscopy (EM).”

Now Mr. Baker is claiming that he has worked with “cultured HIV” and yet there are no tests for HIV because there is no proof that HIV exists. It all so convoluted, contradictory and ridiculous. But let’s look a little further at Baker’s statement regarding these supposed tests with cultured HIV:

“We then drew samples of blood from allegedly HIV+ patients, sending 5ml for viral load testing and the rest for EM.  We found that – even with viral loads of 3 million per ml – there was no evidence of HIV in the blood…using PCR.”

Now Mr. Baker says that PCR is an acceptable testing methodology for HIV whereas above he says that no tests are adequate to test for HIV because there is no proof that HIV exists. OH, but Baker does say he has seen HIV with an Electron Microscope and he has worked with cultured HIV…and yet HIV has never been proven to exist! This clearly demonstrates that Mr. Baker will say whatever he wants in any situation no matter how contradictory it is.

I will not attempt to deconstruct all of his comments as there are just too many things that meander aimlessly. But you really should do yourself a favor and read his analogy of HIV testing to a cop and a drunk driver. It’s priceless.

Let me just leave you with one thought that shows just how ridiculous and contradictory Baker can be. Baker has some harsh words for virologists at the end of his 1:16 comment:

“But when Americans are finally aware of the facts regarding HIV, HEP C, Ebola, H1N1, and other gov’t/pharmaceutical marketing schemes, virologists will find their rightful place in fading strip mall storefronts, between the astrologers and palm readers.” emphasis mine

But then Baker ends his entire three comment diatribe with a quote from the Father of Virology, implicitly calling him a “reputable man”.

Sgt David Gutierrez Appeal: The Defense is All About the Science, About the Science, Not the Denial

Let me start this post by saying that Clark Baker may very well deserve the credit for getting this appeal off the ground. When Gutierrez was originally tried, Baker offered his “expert services” to Defense Attorney Aaron Maness. Maness turned down Baker because he did not agree with Baker’s anti-science strategy. Baker’s dainty feelings got butt-hurt and he cried ineffective counsel. However, this military document clearly shows that charge was false and the appeal did not proceed on Baker’s false allegations.

“The record clearly rebuts the appellant’s claim that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance. The convening authority appointed an HIV expert to assist the trial defense team, and the expert actively participated in pretrial interviews of the Government’s expert who, as a result of challenges by the defense expert, modified her opinions concerning the likelihood of transmission during various forms of sexual activity in favor of the appellant. A voucher shows payment to the named defense consultant for over 16 hours of consultation and records review. The specific error claimed by the appellant that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance is simply incorrect. Rather, the appellant’s argument is essentially a request to try the case again with a different expert. Having considered the record of trial and the post-trial submissions of counsel, we find that the appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing that his counsel  were in any way deficient under the standards of Strickland.”

No matter how this appeal happened, one thing is certain: The appeal is going forward based solidly on the current, orthodox science despite Mr. Baker’s claims:

Clark Baker London’s Daily Mail has a fair report about OMSJ’s appeal for USAF Sergeant David Gutierrez in Washington DC. I’m leaving for DC in three hours. The case could change military law and end the practice of charging people like Gutierrez who aren’t infected at all. Our examination of the evidence showed that he was never infected at all. Our examination of the evidence showed that he was never infected, but that his doctor received $2.9 million from the makers of drugs he was given.

Is anyone surprised with Baker’s claim that Gutierrez was not infected at all based on OMSJ “review of the evidence”? Mr. Baker has steadfastly claimed that out of all the cases (real or imagined) he has been involved with, not one, single, solitary time has OMSJ ever found evidence that any of those clients was actually HIV+. Shocker! Mr. Baker just makes a fool out of himself with such statements. For this to be a significant revelation Mr. Baker would have to be a non-partisan, unbiased and objective investigator. Mr. Baker has proven time and again that he is anything but objective and that he has a clear cut agenda to promote his AIDS Denial via the court system. A more accurate analogy would be that Mr. Baker is like a grifter operating a shell game; you know that pea is under the shell no matter how adroit the huckster’s sleight of hand. Baker just further stretches his own credibility when he pretends that anyone is fooled by his supposed objectivity.

But I digress.

The defense of this case is focusing steadfastly on the current, orthodox science. This military trial is not hidden away and we have actual proof in the form of audio. You can go to this military blog to hear the trial audio for yourself.  At no point does the new defense attorney, Kevin McDermott mention anything about Gutierrez not being HIV positive or any of Baker’s other anti-science strategy. To the contrary Mr. Mc Dermott discusses his client’s Viral Load and CD4 counts, thus validating the testing methodologies. McDermott also states that HAART has made HIV a chronic, manageable disease. And much to the chagrin of AIDS Deniers everywhere, McDermott throws his support squarely to Nancy Padian:

“I am NOT here to argue that AIDS is not a potentially deadly and dangerous outcome of sex.”

Again, the defense is laser-focused on the current science. McDermott even begins with a discussion of other diseases and how society and laws have changed as our knowledge of the disease, progression and transmission has advanced. McDermott brings this evolution back around to HIV. I will not go into dissecting the argument. You can listen for yourself and know that if this case is won, it will be because of science, not denial.

However, McDermott does shed light on the only case that Clark Baker claims to have won at trial: Tarence C. Dixon. McDermott clearly says in the court audio that the judge in the first Gutierrez case stated that when a condom was used in previous cases, those charges were dismissed. That would further support my belief, along with other information I have published, that the one and only case that Clark Baker claims to have won, that of Tarence C. Dixon, was because, as stated at trial, Mr. Dixon wore condoms.

Military Courts Are Out of Control Regarding HIV Cases

The most important, dramatic and amazing thing that I discovered because of this case is just how much Military Courts are out of control. This Amicus Brief filed in support of the Gutierrez Case demonstrates just how the Military Courts have grown to ignore their own rules, regulations and laws. This document is a great read and highlights the problems with the Military System and how this case and others are set to change the way these cases are adjudicated in the military: with solid science! I will not deconstruct the issue. The Amicus Brief does a beautiful job of that and I suggest you read it and support getting the justice system back on track, not just in the military, but in civilian courts as well.

I may be responsible for the death of the HIV Innocence Group, but if the Gutierrez Case is overturned on appeal, this will be the nail in the coffin of that dangerous group…and it was done with Orthodox Science. How bittersweet will it be for Clark Baker to have been so vigilant to get this appeal going only for it to end on such a beautiful, scientific note.

A Special Post for Elizabeth Ely

Elizabeth Ely has once again made false statements about me. This time she has used her podcasts with David Crowe, episode 92, How Positive Are You? At about the 3 minute mark Ely refers to a comment that I left on episode 71 about the Bobby Russell Case. Even though I only left a link to this blog where I discussed the Russell Case, Ely still characterized that comment as:

  • “a really nasty comment”
  • “snarky”
  • “it was an attack”
  • “trashing someone’s lawsuit”

How she got all of that out of a simple link is mystifying, but understanding Ms. Ely’s logic or rationale has never been my strong suit. Once I went back to episode 71 I saw that Ms. Ely had expounded on her false allegations in a big way by leaving a comment of her own. In that comment she accuses me of being “mean-spirited” and “taunting” and “attempting to discourage patients” and “mocking his (Russell’s) quest for justice”.

I am not sure if Ms. Ely just has a reading comprehension problem or if she is intentionally being misleading, but my post on the Bobby Russell Case is not about the merits of the case. I even say so in the post. The clear object of the post is to point out that Clark Baker and OMSJ were not helping in this case despite the fact that the case perfectly fulfills the Mission Statement of OMSJ. I will not re-hash that post here.

I am only writing this post to clear up the false statements Ms. Ely seems to enjoy perpetuating about me. I also would like to say to Ms. Ely that she and Mr. Crowe should have me on their podcast. I would be more than willing to discuss any subject with you and we could clear up any misunderstanding you have. I highly doubt Ms. Ely will take me up on this offer for two reasons:

  1. I do not believe she has the courage to lay this all out on the table and take responsibility for her false allegations.
  2. I also do not believe she can have a professional and rational discussion with me.

The ball is in your court, Ms. Ely.

HIV Innocence Group: Happy 1 Year Deathiversary!

It has officially been one year since Clark Baker posted a case to his website for the HIV Innocence Group. For all intents and purposes the HIV Innocence Group is dead. Mr. Baker is trying to convince a Federal Appeals judge in Texas that it is 100% my fault. According to court documents, my sole intention when I started this blog was the “economic destruction of Clark Baker and OMSJ.”  The proof that Baker offers is weak at best and hinges on two things from this blog:

  • One sentence taken out of context
  • One word improperly defined

Seriously; that’s his entire case. In this post I will not delve into conspiracy theory non-sense to explain the failings of Mr. Baker’s logic. In this post I will provide solid evidence and facts as to why Mr. Baker is solely responsible for killing his own career and the HIV Innocence Group.

Clark Baker is his own worst enemy. His ambition, ego and aversion to the truth are what put him out of business. Mr. Baker padded his resume with cases that he never worked on. He falsely claimed success based on an anti-science strategy that HIV tests are worthless because they test for antibodies and not the virus itself and that HIV science is “junk science”.

Mr. Baker lists 56 cases at his website and according to Mr. Baker he was successful in all 56 cases, or 100%:

“Since its inception in 2009 the HIV INNOCENCE GROUP has successfully provided investigatory and expert support in over fifty cases resulting in the acquittal, dismissal or significantly reduced plea bargain of HIV related charges.”

And there is this statement from Winning Criminal HIV Cases:

“In every case where defense attorneys worked with OMSJ since 2009, all HIV charges have been dismissed or aggressively plea-bargained by prosecutors.”

I was able to definitively prove both statements are neither truthful nor accurate in 14 cases, or 25%. And those are just the cases that I was able to adequately investigate to the level that I felt comfortable reporting. Those 14 cases do not include 4 of the 5 cases that went to trial. When I include those 4 cases it jumps to 18 cases, or 32%. I cannot say Mr. Baker’s statement above is a lie (one can get sued for that) but in my opinion it is hogwash.

However, Mr. Baker does have a 100% perfect record at trial; for losing. Every single case that has gone to trial has resulted in long prison sentences for Mr. Baker’s clients. That is probably the reason no defense attorneys want to use Baker’s services. His strategy is a loser at trial and if there is one thing that an attorney hates, it is to lose.

There is one military case that went to trial that Baker won. However, I do not consider it to be a legitimate win. According to other sources the case of Tarence C. Dixon was not won using Baker’s “junk science” strategy and Mr. Baker has never presented any evidence contradicting these sources. Even journalist Terry Michaels who identifies with the AIDS deniers reported that Mr. Dixon wore condoms and none of the women disputed that fact at trial. Mr. Michaels also reported that none of the women tested HIV positive. Lastly, Mr. Michaels reported that Mr. Dixon tested HIV positive twice on rapid tests, twice on the ELISA and was twice confirmed HIV positive with the Western Blot as well as two positive viral loads by PCR. It is highly doubtful that a judge dismissed the accuracy of 8 positive tests via 4 different methodologies. It is more likely that a reasonable judge realized there was no intent in this case and ruled accordingly.

Then there are the three cases where the charges were dropped because the defendants tested negative on the very tests Mr. Baker claims are worthless. These three cases are the antithesis of Mr. Baker’s strategy. It is the height of arrogance to claim to have been involved in the cases of Jose Alex Perez, Daniel Hay Lewis and Lenny Love.

How about the two cases where the charges were dropped due to a legal precedent set in a previous case? Shan Ortiz and Darren Chiacchia. These cases hinged on the definition of intercourse not on a bogus anti-science strategy. It is also interesting to note that the State of Florida appealed the Chiacchia case and neither Baron Coleman nor Clark Baker are involved in that appeal. I have confirmed the newspaper article directly with Mr. Chiacchia via a telephone conversation on two occasions. Mr. Chiacchia also confirmed his defense will have nothing to do with AIDS Denial. This is further proof that the HIV Innocence Group is no longer active.

In my opinion, the most disturbing, egregious and obvious reason that no attorneys want to use Mr. Baker’s service is because he has padded his resume with cases that he has never worked on in any capacity. I have 5 emails from 5 different attorneys on 5 different cases confirming that they did not utilize Mr. Baker’s service. And yet their case is listed on Baker’s website as “wins” for his HIV Innocence Group. The only work Mr. Baker did was make a phone call and offer his service. Each attorney declined his offer. However, each attorney made the mistake of sending an email to Baker as a professional courtesy advising him of the outcome of the case. Mr. Baker used that courtesy email as “proof” that he was involved in the outcome of each case. You can read the emails below:

One. ~ Two. ~ Three. ~ Four. ~ Five.

What brought about the swift decline of a group that Baker claimed was solely responsible for initiating the change in HIV Criminalization Laws throughout the entire world? How could a group that was so successful that it had a 100% success rate from its very inception be gone overnight? I believe it is obvious. Mr. Baker claimed to have been involved in cases when he wasn’t, his anti-science strategy is a proven loser in court and he lists cases that had nothing to do with said strategy. How can the HIV Innocence Group be dead when it didn’t really exist in the first place?


More Fun with Clark Baker’s “Science”

This is a very slight deviation from the original intent of this blog which is to provide proof that Clark Baker’s HIV Innocence Group is not what Baker presents to the public. However, this post does demonstrate two qualities of Mr. Baker that have been a running theme on this blog:

1. His lack of science knowledge

2. His affinity to say whatever outrageous things he wants with no proof

On Mr. Baker’s facebook page October 30, 2014 he wrote the following:

  • Clark Baker Roger – This report is probably the most comprehensive I’ve read about vaccines. They’re loaded with all kinds of toxins – so many in fact that unvaccinated people have been known to get sick and die when exposed to vaccinated people. I haven’t been sick since I stopped getting flu shots in 2012. I used to get sick 3-4 times a year – I don’t get sick anymore (knock on wood!).

Mr. Baker makes the outrageous claim that toxins in vaccines are so prolific that they jump right out of the bodies of vaccinated people into the bodies of unvaccinated people and kill them dead. I am rewriting his statement and raising the level of hyperbole to drive home just how ridiculous and outrageous that comment is. And before you think that Mr. Baker is also being hyperbolic, I challenge you to look over his posts at his facebook page. It is a plethora of conspiracy theories, everything anti-science, racists posts about President Obama and misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton and more. And on the rare occasions that someone dares challenge Mr. Baker in his echo chamber, he doubles down on unsubstantiated beliefs, racism and/or misogyny. It really is something to behold.

Perhaps most notably about the statement above, Mr. Baker links to an article to support his “toxins in vaccines that magically kill unvaccinated people” gambit. And the article is “the most comprehensive I’ve ever read about vaccines”. However, the article does not even mention the word “toxins” nor does it even come close to supporting the statement Mr. Baker makes.

Mr. Baker can believe and even say pretty much anything he wants; That is the beauty of America. However, when he makes statements that are not supported and many times even contradicted by the “proof” he supplies, that is when his credibility and integrity should be questioned.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.