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.


Sleeping with the Enemy: Clark Baker Lures Kevin Kuritzky into Bed

It was in late 2008 when I first discovered the “debate” questioning the link between HIV as the cause of AIDS. On one side were those who said HIV does not exist or is not pathogenic: the denialists. On the other side were those who trust the 30 years of solid science: the orthodox. (The term orthodox was created as an ad hominem by the denialists, but I have embraced the term.) If there had ever been any semblance of friendly debate, that time is long gone. By the time I got involved, the discussion was in full-tilt take-no-prisoners mode. Every comment section of every article that remotely addressed HIV quickly devolved into childish name calling and insults on both sides.

The niche community involved in this debate was very small and incestuous. Many people used their own names or stuck with the same moniker and were therefore easily identifiable. Everyone was known to each other and some people were hated more than others. And some people’s hatred was so vicious it made them act irrationally.

One well known rivalry was between me and Jonathan Barnett. When we disclosed that we had buried the hatchet and actually met face to face in May, the ReThinking AIDS group went ballistic. The childish name calling and hateful rhetoric that was once reserved for the rival orthodox was now being spewed at Jonathan. Jonathan had done the unforgivable; he had fraternized with the enemy. If the revelation that Jonathan and I are now friendly created such an upset among the dissidents, I cannot imagine what will happen when they find out what Clark Baker has been up to.

Making the Bed

If there were a way to quantify the hatred between the players, I would say that Clark Baker’s hatred of three people is the most profound. Baker hates three people in this order:

1. Dr. James Murtagh
2. Kevin Kurtizky
3. Yours Truly

As targets of Mr. Baker’s ire, we all have much in common. Mr. Baker has sued each of us. Mr. Baker has written many hateful articles about each of us and cross-posted them to his myriad websites. In some of those posts we are co-stars and some feature us independently. And the internet is littered with creative insults for each of us: I am an unloved, alcoholic meth-tranny; Murtagh is a corrupt doc and perjurer; Kuritzky is a plagiarist, fugitive and felon. Oh, yeah, and we are all Pharma Sluts. All these allegations and more are repeated ad nauseam at & & & exliberalinhollywood.blogspot & & several other sites. Clark Baker inseminates the internet with defamation like maggots on a carcass.

Whereas Murtagh and I have been lawsuit-tangible, the one person who has eluded Mr. Baker for many years and therefore frustrated him the most is Kevin Kuritzky. Kuritzky and Murtagh were two of the named defendants in a defamation lawsuit filed by Celia Farber. Despite Mr. Baker’s prodigious investigative skills he was never able to locate and serve either of them. In the end it did not really matter because Ms. Farber lost the suit in summary judgment.

Mr. Baker was so frustrated at his own incompetence of not being able to locate Murtagh and Kuritzky, he offered a $5,000.00 reward for their whereabouts:

While their false charges against me make interesting reading, anyone who wishes to earn $5000 cash can contact me so that I can have them served.

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   
Posted by Anonymous on 10/25/2009 at 3:37 PM

If you are not convinced to whom Mr. Baker is referring, this may help:

Kuritzky and Murtagh are still in hiding. if anyone knows where they’re at, send me a message at Like Emory, they made false allegations and don’t want to be forced to defend their false allegations in NYC.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   
Posted by Anonymous on 07/01/2009 at 11:50 AM

In a separate scenario a few years later, Mr. Baker claims he and his wife were being harassed by an anonymous person. Mr. Baker suspected it was Kevin Kuritzky. Once again Baker’s prolific investigatory skills fell short and he had to resort to filing an expensive “John Doe” lawsuit hoping to uncover Kevin’s identity and location. It was filed in Massachusetts on March 7, 2012 Case #1:12-cv-10434. It was dismissed December of 2012 and Baker was no closer to finding Kuritzky. This humiliating defeat compounded Baker’s frustration exponentially.

In my opinion it would be fair to say that Mr. Baker was consumed with Kevin Kuritzky. Not only did Mr. Baker try to sue Kuritzky twice as well as write many long, disparaging articles about Kevin that he cross-pollinated to six different sites, but he also inundated comment sections with defamatory statements about Kevin all over the web. I could provide pages of examples of websites where Mr. Baker flooded the comment section disparaging Kevin. For example, in the post linked above Mr. Baker wrote 8 of the 14 comments at that site dating from 2009 to 2013. The next comment below has been posted verbatim at sites too numerous to mention: (NOTE: I have redacted what I believe to be Kevin’s new, legal name for reasons to be explained below.)

David Kuritzky’s been a wanted fugitive since his 2009 arrest.

OMSJ investigators recently linked KURITZKY, (aka “Kralc Rekab”, aka Snout, aka “REDACTED”, aka “REDACTED”) to a Comcast IP address in Cambridge MA. A year later, Comcast identified “REDACTED’S” address within walking distance from Harvard University, where OMSJ’s server logs show that he spent many hours and months on my website in an apartment with apparently no legitimate means of employment.

Shortly after he fled (using a new passport, Florida ID and SSN), OMSJ tracked him down in Georgia, where he was arrested by sheriffs deputies on a fugitive warrant. Three weeks later, Mrs. Tovah Kuritzky filed for divorce in Florida.

Last March, Kuritzky pled guilty to embezzling at least $150,000 from his former employer, a FELONY. During the sentencing hearing, his attorney disclosed Kuritzky’s earlier vandalism conviction and cited his bouts of mental illness. You’ll find more info, along with his associate, former Emory Medical School Professor James Murtagh MD at

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   
Posted by cwbpi on 08/24/2013 at 8:44 PM

In the last comment above it is interesting to note the number of monikers that Mr. Baker attributes to Kevin with absolutely no proof. Baker was notorious for turning up in comment sections and if there was another commenter with an unfamiliar moniker, Baker would invariably say it was Kevin Kuritzky and shoot off the same old, tired list of ad hominems; felon, fugitive, thief and more. Mr. Baker would do this to kill two birds with one stone; He wanted to discredit the other person and take every opportunity he could to disparage and defame Kevin.

Baker’s favorite moniker to attribute to Kevin was that of Snout. There are probably 100+ blogs, articles and youtube comment sections where Baker would relentlessly accuse Snout of really being Kevin and start posting defamatory statements. This literally went on for 5 years. Now Mr. Baker has finally admitted that he was wrong. In his affidavit of February 21, 2014 in his Federal lawsuit against me in Paragraph 18, Mr. Baker concedes:

“Kuritzky has previously identified himself as the blogger SNOUT, although evidence now suggests that he may not be SNOUT.”

Amazingly Mr. Baker’s ego will never allow him to fully admit he was wrong. He neglects to say or even attempt to prove when, where and how “Kuritzky has previously identified himself as the blogger SNOUT”, but he does finally admit his error and in doing so, he tacitly admits that he is a terrible Private Investigator and that he never had proof of the countless accusations he made for 5 years. What a stand-up guy!

Pulling Back the Covers

Now I am not saying that Baker was fixated on an angel who did nothing wrong. As I wrote in the beginning of this post, both sides in the “debate” regarding HIV as the cause of AIDS were childish, unprofessional, flung insults and that some acted irrationally. However, from the proof I have supplied above (and trust me, I have left out much more of their history) you may be wondering how these two buried the hatchet. Don’t forget, there is one person Clark Baker hates worse than Kevin Kuritzky: Dr. James Murtagh.

Baker is now on the other end of the litigious stick and is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by Dr. Murtagh for interference with his employment. I will not get into the merits of the case. However, I know from personal experience that Mr. Baker does have a history of calling one’s employer for sinister and nefarious reasons. In this lawsuit Mr. Baker has somehow gotten Mr. Kuritzky to supply an affidavit supporting Baker and claiming that Dr. Murtagh forced Kevin, a full grown, highly intelligent man (he was accepted to Medical School and Law School) to act as his puppet and do all sorts of terrible things to Mr. Baker.

Soiling the Sheets

To me this new partnership is highly suspect and does not reflect well on either party. My reservation has nothing to do with my personal feelings for Mr. Baker or any type of emotional or visceral response. If these two men had come to an understanding, forgiven each other and vowed to move on, I would be supportive. Unfortunately my reservation is based on multiple facts.

1. The affidavit itself

2. My personal knowledge and experience with Kevin Kuritzky

3. The transparently obvious quid pro quo

4. Mr. Baker’s behavior exhibited toward Mr. Kuritzky over the last several years

1. The Affidavit

I encourage you to read the affidavit before you continue with my post. I further encourage you to keep two windows open so that you can refer back to the affidavit. I have an advantage in critiquing this affidavit because I have been “privileged” to read 100’s of pages of documents in Baker’s suit against me. The theme of paranoid-conspiracy-theory-fantasy permeates both the Kuritzky Affidavit and Baker’s suit against me.

In my case I serve as the puppet and liability shield for Robert Gallo, scientists of the NIH, CDC and all of Big Pharma in a concentrated effort to destroy Baker, OMSJ and the HIV Innocence Group. In the Kuritzky Affidavit Kevin is the puppet for Murtagh who is orchestrating a takedown of “Celia Farber, Peter Duesberg, Clark Baker and other credible investigators” (page 2) to protect “the credibility and reputation of some of the world’s top universities and organizations like the United Nations and World Health Organization, which receive and distribute billions in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the pharmaceutical industry, and governments that support current HIV research, testing and treatment policies around the world. The negative social and political impact of this scandal would be hard to measure.” (page 3)

Just one page later, on page 4, paragraph 11, Baker increases the conspiracy theory to include many other people, most notably the people who created the AIDS Truth website. And all of this is being coordinated through Dr. Kalichman’s blog Denying AIDS as well as my two blogs which he neglects to name. Baker also neglects to say exactly how this coordinated attack was carried out. All of a sudden Kevin and Murtagh are not lone wolves but part of a grand conspiracy and Kevin is just “one of their foot soldiers.”

There is no denying that Mr. Baker wrote the affidavit. It is so complex, far-fetched and has too many characters as well as being irrelevant to the lawsuit. If Baker wants to convince a judge that Kevin harassed him and Murtagh was behind it, it would be much more believable to provide specific, detailed examples. Don’t try to incorporate the UN, WHO, NIH and universities around the world and many world governments. Such an incredible story just looks silly and desperate.

2. Knowledge & Experience

My personal knowledge and experience with Kevin Kuritzky is another way I can debunk this fiction. Back in 2009 I spoke on the phone with Kevin at least four times. Each and every time he would call to brag, gloat and laugh about some shenanigans he was pulling on Baker. I finally had to put my foot down and tell him to stop the harassment because Baker would be on-line accusing me of the harassment. I can give a specific example. The last time I talked to Kevin he was telling me that he would use SKYPE to call Baker and encourage me to do it as well. Kevin told me that there was no way to trace the call with SKYPE. He would send me recordings via email of him calling Baker and taunting Baker about his lack of science knowledge. That was when I finally asked Kevin to stop calling me. I can also attest that Kevin never once sounded remorseful nor did he ever say that Murtagh put him up to it or that Murtagh ever suggested that he continue this type of behavior.

3. Quid pro quo

I believe Kevin has acquiesced to this affidavit for the simple reason that he is tired of all this and he is tired of Baker cross-posting the mistakes he has made in his life all over the internet. I believe that is why he has changed his name legally and that is why I redacted the name from the comment I posted above. It would be easy for others to locate that name but out of respect, I have chosen to redact it. More than likely Kevin regrets his mistakes and what he has done to Baker, but I do not believe he volunteered this affidavit. I believe Kevin agreed so that Mr. Baker would not only stop posting a litany of Kevin’s mistakes around the internet, but that Baker would also scrub the internet of as much of the defamatory statements as possible.

Mr. Baker is attempting to clean up his graffiti in several ways. For example, if you go to Baker’s OMSJ website and click on Kevin’s name, the hyper-link no longer takes the reader to a list of articles that discuss Kevin; It now takes you to the generic home page. Baker has done this as well at many of his other sites. Baker has also removed any mention of Kevin’s new, legal name from the posts. Now you will only find the felon and plagiarist “Kevin Kuritzky”, who no longer exists.

However, the most notable and obvious example of Baker removing the defamation of Kevin is at a website called This site once included 5 “propagandists”. If you go to the main page and hover over the tile “The Propagandists” you will get a drop down menu that includes the name of Kevin Kuritzky. And as I wrote about on July 21, 2014 you will see that I discussed the inclusion of Mr. Kuritzky. However, now that Kuritzky has “voluntarily” supplied an affidavit for Baker in his current suit against Dr. Murtagh, you will no longer find Kevin included on that list nor will you find his picture which was once there. As a matter of fact, if you click on Kevin’s name, you will get a 404 Error Page Not Found. BTW I have kept a screen shot showing the drop down menu contains Kevin’s name.

Also, and in a tie for most obvious example of Baker’s quid pro quo is that Baker has now blurred or pixelated the images of Kevin in the mug shots and news articles describing Kevin’s trouble with the law on Baker’s sites. Let me just say as an aside that it is contemptible and disgusting that Baker ever posted those in the first place. Such behavior shows that Mr. Baker was doing everything he could to humiliate Kevin.

Lastly, and perhaps most notably, there are potentially 750,000 more reasons for Kevin to “volunteer” this affidavit: Baker filed a civil suit against Kevin after he finally found his identity and location. In the second suit against Kevin, Baker demands damages “in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $750,000″, as well as attorney fees and punitive damages.

One can be relatively certain that this threat was looming large in Kevin’s mind although Baker knew he could never collect. Baker says as much in his February 2014 declaration paragraph 46, in his Federal suit against me:

Although I tracked a link to Kuritzky’s Comcast IP address, it wasn’t until August 2012 that the state court in Boston issued a subpoena in one week that the federal court had delayed for eight months. I hired two law firms – one in New York and the other in Boston – to identify and prosecute my civil complaint against Kuritzky in federal and state court. Kuritzky was served in March 2013 and never responded. My attorneys filed for default judgment in September 2013 and, as of the date of this declaration, the federal court has not yet responded to our motion for default judgment. Despite the fact that Kuritzky paid $150,000 in cash to avoid his five-year sentence in Fulton County, Georgia, it is unlikely that I will ever recover from the injuries and costs of my defamation claim against him. (emphasis mine)

4. Baker’s behavior toward Kevin over the last five or six years (see all the examples above) clearly show a man for whom Baker considers to be contemptible, dishonest and untrustworthy to say the least. How can anyone believe that Baker and Kuritzky have now come forward as a united front? And what judge or jury is ever going to believe this scenario?

There is definitely something untoward going on here. Mr. Baker does not seem like the type to spend years of his time, energy and a huge sum of money tracking down Kevin Kuritzky only to wind up sweet talking him into helping out his new buddy. The facts only add up in Mr. Baker’s fantasy world where he is the victim and vast numbers of people and organizations are conspiring against him. Although none of Mr. Baker’s court documents tells the story from both sides, he gives just as good as he gets.

Baker has created a no-win situation for himself and yet now he expects others to forget the past (which he has attempted to scrub) and come along on a new adventure. But I guess anyone who believes that his “work” is so important that it poses a threat to the NIH, the CDC, the WHO, the UN and many governments and that Murtagh, Kuritizky and myself are the puppets on the front lines, then I guess he will believe anything. The real problem, however, is getting rational people to believe it as well.

We Are All Saved! Clark Baker Is Now Researching Ebola

Nothing makes me happier than when Clark Baker displays his science expertise. It took me two separate posts to deconstruct his dreadful “analysis” of Flow Cytometry.  And who can forget the abysmal “research” paper on Electron Microscopy by Andrew Maniotis and funded by OMSJ. Do not forget about the Phylogenetic analysis of HIV.

There is also the general bragging at RA facebook (September 2013) about research being done by OMSJ:

Clark Baker Having been involved in MANY cases since 2008, I’m convinced that HIV and AIDS are real. We’ve photographed HIV and continue to engage in HIV/plasma experiments using electron microscopy.  It’s also hard to avoid the fact that most living organisms, including humans, eventually die from conditions that compromise health and lead to an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and death. But like Mullis and Duesberg, we found NO REPRODUCIBLE PROOF that HIV causes AIDS. If such a proof existed, OMSJ has the funding and resources to prove it ourselves.  But we’re not at dead end – I suspect that we’ll soon ask HIV researchers that question in one or more videotaped depositions. Stay tuned.

Mr. Baker’s most recent comment at RA facebook (October 15, 2014) says he is now going to research Ebola:

Clark Baker Kalule Brian Kasule – This is a theory I’m working on. I can’t prove it until I can get some soil, water, and air samples from allegedly HIV/Ebola hotspots. I’d be interested in your impressions/thoughts.…/hiv-africa-connecting-the-dots

Is there no scientific discipline this man with only a high school education from 1970 cannot tackle? I guess not, as long as he has the right “soil, water and air samples.”

The most perplexing thing is the link that Baker supplies in his comment. That link is to a blog post Baker wrote back in 2009. First of all, it does not say one thing about Ebola and therefore it is one more example of Mr. Baker being an opportunist. Second, what it does say is nothing more than a fantasy conspiracy theory for which Mr. Baker has no proof. Baker says that the mining companies in South Africa are using AIDS as a smoke-screen disease in place of the real diseases of silicosis, asbestosis and tuberculosis suffered by their miners. These mining companies are supposedly doing this so that they cannot be held liable.

Somehow Mr. Baker ties these companies to Treatment Action Campaign and the World Health Organization and many other groups and universities in a vast conspiracy of some sort. And in Baker World he surmises: “mounting evidence suggests that South Africa may be ground zero in AIDS mythology.”  But it really does nothing of the kind. Just because some scumbag companies do not want to be held liable for the health of their employees and are using AIDS as the scapegoat only proves that they are scumbag companies. It definitely does not mean that AIDS is a myth.

No matter what Mr. Baker is saying in his blog post from 2009, I just wonder why it has been 5 years and he still has not been able to get his “soil, water and air samples from allegedly HIV/Ebola hotspots”. Maybe he had to wait for Ebola to grab enough attention so Mr. Baker could deflect some of that attention onto himself.

Clark Baker: Inspiration to Global Humanitarians

NOTE: In keeping with my series of posts demonstrating Mr. Baker’s penchant for extreme exaggerations, I thought I would re-post this from January 2012. This post demonstrates Mr. Baker’s reckless abandon with the truth and arguably with reality. This is, quite possibly, the Mother-of-all-Exaggerations by Mr. Clark Baker.

Original Post

Clark Baker has made the outrageous claim that the change in policy regarding HIV Criminalization in the U.S. and the world is a direct result of his supposed success in 38 HIV cases since 2009 via his Office of Medical and Scientific Justice:

OMSJ Victories Raise Humanitarian Complaints

Mr. Baker egotistically claims that he started his HIV Innocence Project (now Group) in 2009 and lo and behold in 2010 the rest of the country and the world followed suit.

Despite 25 years of criminal prosecutions against hundreds of factually-innocent men and women, US and UN officials – along with pharmaceutically-funded gay activists – are suddenly calling for the end of all HIV-related criminal prosecutions. Their demands coincidentally began months after OMSJ began to expose HIV experts as incompetent in several prominent criminal trials. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Baker even claims that the Obama Administration announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy producing a 60 page document in 2010 called National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States all because of Mr. Baker’s successful track record regarding HIV Criminalization cases since 2009. This track record only consisted of 5 cases when the Obama Administration put out this tome: Oct 2009 to July 2010. I would venture to say that 5 cases is not exactly attention grabbing.

Beginning with the Obama Administration and United Nations in 2010 and members of Congress a year later, lobbyists and activists have suddenly decided that the prosecution of HIV-patients violates basic human rights (emphasis Baker) and should stop immediately…human rights only became an issue after (emphasis Baker) OMSJ began to expose “HIV experts” as unapologetically corrupt or, at best, grossly incompetent.  OMSJ’s success exposes the 30-year hoax and threatens a wave of multistate class-action lawsuits against thousands of incompetent clinicians throughout the US .

Here is the problem with Mr. Baker’s assertions: as usual, he is completely full of shit.

I can justifiably go back to 2002 to prove that Mr. Baker is undeniably wrong by presenting this document from UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS:

Criminal Law, Public Health and HIV Transmission: A Policy Options Paper  Geneva, Switzerland June 2002

Just a sample from the table of contents from this 52 page document shows not only was the U.S. way ahead of Mr. Baker on this issue, but the rest of the world was as well:

Guiding principles
· Best available evidence should be the basis of policy
· Prevention of HIV must be the primary objective of the policy of criminalization
· Policy must respect human rights
· Infringements of human rights must be adequately justified
Broader policy considerations
Difficulties with proof
Possible detrimental effect on public health initiatives
(1) Reinforcing HIV/AIDS-related stigma
(2) Spreading misinformation about HIV/AIDS
(3) Disincentive to HIV testing
(4) Hindering access to counseling and support
(5) Creating a false sense of security
Risk of selective prosecution
Gender inequality and criminalization
Invasions of privacy

There is also this 36 page follow up in 2007:
Summary of main issues and conclusions
International Consultation on the Criminalization of HIV Transmission
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
United Nations Development Programme
31 October – 2 November 2007
Geneva, Switzerland

In 2002, UNAIDS issued a policy options paper on this issue.  In light of renewed calls for the application of criminal law to HIV transmission and concerns raised in this regard by the UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Humans Rights and others, UNDP and the UNAIDS Secretariat decided to bring together a number of legal experts and other concerned stakeholders to discuss this issue in the context of an effective human rights and public health response to HIV.

Moving along chronologically is this document distributed in 2008 (researched/data compiled since 2006):

Ten Reasons to Oppose the Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission

Date: December 1, 2008
Open Society Institute
While these issues must be urgently addressed, a closer analysis of the complex issues raised by criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission reveals that criminalization is unlikely to prevent new infections or reduce women’s vulnerability to HIV. In fact, it may harm women rather than assist them, and negatively impact both public health and human rights. This document, co-produced by OSI, provides ten reasons why criminalizing HIV exposure or transmission is generally an unjust and ineffective public policy. It has been endorsed by leading human rights, AIDS, and women’s organizations and networks throughout the world.

All the above information adequately proves that Mr. Baker is completely wrong in his assertion that he is the Supreme Instrument of Change regarding HIV Criminalization in the U.S. and the world.  But let’s look specifically at Mr. Baker’s claim regarding the U.S. and the Obama Administration.   Even though National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States was published in 2010 it was inspired by research from Scott Burris et al published in 2008:   (Under “Legal Events…” go to United States)

In July 2010 the White House announced a major change in its HIV/AIDS policy, a change informed by public health law research carried out by Scott Burris, professor of law at Temple University and the director of the Public Health Law Research program. The official National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States concluded that “the continued existence and enforcement of these types of laws [criminalizing HIV infection] run counter to scientific evidence about routes of HIV transmission and may undermine the public health goals of promoting HIV screening and treatment.”

The administration strategy credits The case against criminalization of HIV transmission”, a piece by Burris and Edwin Cameron, a South African judge, in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2008. They wrote “The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so.”
Professor Burris has produced a prodigious amount of research on this very subject going back to 2002 which the Obama Administration used as a basis for its new policy:

Evaluating the Impact of Criminal Laws on HIV Risk Behavior Scott Burris, JD 2002
Do Criminal Laws Influence HIV Risk Behavior? Scott Burris, JD 2007
The Criminalization of HIV: Time for an Unambiguous Rejection of the Use of Criminal Law to Regulate the Sexual Behavior of Those with and at Risk of HIV Scott Burris, JD 2008
HIV is a Virus, Not a Crime: Ten Reasons Against Criminal Statutes and Criminal Prosecutions Scott Burris, JD 2008
The Case Against Criminalization of HIV Transmission Scott Burris, JD 2008
Ten Reasons to Oppose the Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission Scott Burris, JD 2009

I should also note the existence of an extremely comprehensive blog started by Edwin J. Bernard in 2005 simply titled HIV Criminal Transmission Blog. This blog constitutes specific laws and cases from around the world including the history of HIV Criminalization laws. Edwin J. Bernard also literally wrote the book on this subject, again titled HIV Criminalization and was published in 2007.

Here is a very interesting history of HIV Criminalization by James B. McArthur published in the Cornell Law Review 2009:
As The Tide Turns: The Changing HIV/AIDS Epidemic and the Criminalization of HIV Exposure

Mr. McArthur concludes that making new laws have proven to further stigmatize those with HIV and that current laws should be adequate.  New, HIV specific laws lead to stigma, discrimination and fear as well as serve to deter people from being tested.

All of this information is simply a drop in the ocean regarding the research, discussion and evolution on the topic of HIV Criminalization Policy in the U.S. and the world.  This discussion has been going on for almost as long as the disease has been identified.  For Mr. Baker to claim to be even remotely responsible is egotistical at best and ridiculously delusional at worst. .  My point is further driven home by this very website which meticulously details that Mr. Baker has not even been involved in many of the cases he lists at his OMSJ site.  How can he possibly claim victory for something he has not even been involved with?   I could not have asked for better proof that Mr. Baker is a complete and utter fraud lacking not only an ounce of truth, but a smidgen of integrity or dignity as well.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.