Celia Farber Makes Money Beg for Clark Baker & Gets Facts Wrong As Usual

Celia Farber has enlisted the supposed 8,000+ members of ReThinking AIDS facebook page to donate money for Clark Baker’s OMSJ. Unfortunately Ms. Farber is not being forthcoming with the facts. Farber writes:

OMSJ is under heavy heavy fire, meanwhile, from pharma-funded lawsuits and harassment.

They are trying to crush Clark. He can crush right back if he has the money. He needs lawyers to fight back against a barrage of bogus lawsuits.

Translation: Clark Baker has gotten himself into a legal pickle and needs your help to pay the piper.

In 2013 Clark Baker filed arbitration against me to steal my First Amendment Rights and my websites. He lost on all three counts and was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, the UDRP equivalent of Bad Faith.

Because the arbitration was not binding, Baker was able to pursue a lawsuit which he did in Federal Court, no less. That suit was dismissed because it had no legal merit.

Because Mr. Baker has more guts than sense (or money) he appealed. Now Mr. Baker needs you to foot the bill; a bill of $98,000+ and counting. That figure was just for the original suit.

So please, do donate to Mr. Baker’s lost cause. OR if you want to save some time, just make your checks out directly to my Pro-Bono attorneys. You can find them in the previous link explaining how Mr. Baker’s Federal Lawsuit was dismissed.

Also, there is no “barrage of bogus lawsuits” and my attorneys are not “pharma funded”. They are working pro bono because they believe in justice and Freedom of Speech. I am the little man here and Baker is (or was) the heavily funded yet delusional conspiracy theorist chasing ghosts rather than defending himself with facts and proof.

Also, the case Farber listed is not an OMSJ case and it was won based on solid science. I will be writing about the case soon.

Celia Ingrid Farber

This was an OMSJ case. It sets a precedent and should go a long way toward decriminalizing HIV transmission cases, across the country. Hundreds are still in prison serving life sentences.

OMSJ is under heavy heavy fire, meanwhile, from pharma-funded lawsuits and harassment.

Open question: Can this community raise money to help OMSJ fight back legally? I asked Clark what would help and he said if 1,000 people could give $5 a month it would be VERY helpful.

Eduardo Mateo, are you interested in leading a fundraiser for OMSJ?

The highest U.S. military court’s reversal of a Kansas airman’s aggravated assault conviction for exposing multiple sex partners to HIV at swinger parties in Wichita…
ABCNEWS.GO.COM|BY ABC NEWS
  • Celia Ingrid Farber They are trying to crush Clark. He can crush right back if he has the money. He needs lawyers to fight back against a barrage of bogus lawsuits. If everybody can help, raise the energy, raise the money, he has a fighting chance.
  • 14 hrs · Like · 4

Celia Farber on Anecdotal Evidence and Scientific Literature

Celia Farber is using her facebook page to promote a platform that “anecdotal evidence” is just as worthy and valid as rigorous, peer reviewed scientific research. Unfortunately her attempt actually proves why anecdotal evidence is often unreliable. Ms. Farber accomplishes this by letting her emotions and bitter distrust of authority override the logic of her argument.

Celia Ingrid Farber

February 9 at 10:59am · Edited · 

Something’s not quite right with people who are totally rejecting of “anecdotal” evidence.

It smacks of such inferiority, when you say it like that, “anecdotal evidence.” It really sounds like the lesser form of evidence. Tinged with shame.

But in my work as an investigative journalist I have never found real people to be lying about what happened to them. How exactly can truth and history progress, if not through the lives and voices of people, the afflicted, the witnesses?

Those who want to boil it off and go straight to the “scientific literature,” surely you understand this is your anxiety about the truth and not a problem with the truth itself?

Truth emerges from people and voices.

You start there.

By the time the story appears in the “scientific literature” the truth is no longer raw or moving. So you have to merge these two, always (anecdote and literature.) But in a world of bought “science” and Lysenkoist “media,” no study can be quoted without first examining the soil of the study, that is to say, who and what funded it, and what were the impediments to it being purely “scientific?”

Do people realize that pharmaceutical companies exert such financial power that they not only own the doctors writing the papers, they may literally have hired the writers, as ghost writers, then paid doctors just to put their names to it, and in many cases, own or are buying the very publishing company that publishes these journals, as well as the “media” reporting on them, and even (now) the schools producing the new generations of “science journalists,” who understand, unlike previous generations, what the heinous term “responsible journalism” means.

(Accurate and inaccurate are the only valid terms for journalism. You’re not in charge of social life or mass behavior.)

Here Ms. Farber is really making two distinct, separate arguments. The top half of her comment is saying that people and families actually affected by trauma/vaccine injury/disease, “the afflicted, the witnesses”, deserve to be heard. That is a noble and true sentiment on the surface. Unfortunately Ms. Farber conflates this sentiment with her obvious distrust of science and authority thereby stripping her argument of credibility and revealing the truth behind her frustration in the bottom half of the comment.

The bottom half of Ms. Farber’s comment is just hysterical conspiracy theory. For her conspiracy theory to be reality would require not only Big Pharma to be omniscient and all powerful but it would also require the vast majority of scientists and doctors to be abhorrent, repellant human beings with no soul. According to Ms. Farber, these disgusting attributes would also be part and parcel of every reporter, journalist and publisher. Casting such a wide net of heinous aspersions means that this part of her argument can be dismissed as the tantrum of a bitter ex-journalist who ruined her own career and never attempted to reclaim it.

However, the top part of her comment is intriguing and worthy of discussion: Are anecdotal evidence and scientific literature equal?

I believe anecdotal evidence is often unreliable for several reasons. Most importantly correlation does not equal causation. When something bad happens in life we have a basic need to make sense of it and assign blame. When we are feeling emotional from the trauma of losing a loved one we try to rationalize it and reach for whatever makes sense to us and makes us feel better about the situation. But the reason we chose, the one that seems the most obvious, is not necessarily correct.

A great way to really delve into anecdotes versus science we need only look to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). This is a passive surveillance reporting system which means anyone can make a report and there is no one to vet the claim. I’ll let Moms Who Vax explain it:

VAERS is the place where doctors, patients, and really anyone else can report what they suspect to be side effect of a vaccination. The CDC and the FDA co-sponsor this data base, and they use it to monitor possible vaccine side effects. When certain patterns or clusters of similar reports appear, public health officials investigate these events and make appropriate recommendations. For example, in 1999, VAERS caught a higher than expected incidence of intussusception—a bowel disorder—following adminstration of RotaShield, a rotovirus vaccine. Epidemiological studies confirmed the heightened risk of this side effect, and the vaccine was pulled from the market.

(Please make note of that, anti-vaxxers. The U.S. Government actually pulled a money making vaccine from the market because it caused harm.)

Just from that description you might be able to see how this system could be misused. And I do not mean intentionally misused (although that may happen occasionally.) I do not believe that most people intentionally give false information. I have to agree with Ms. Farber when she wrote:

But in my work as an investigative journalist I have never found real people to be lying about what happened to them.

And that is why science is so important. Science strives to be impartial. Science is not about emotion. The purpose of science is to get to the facts devoid of emotion or any preconceived ideas. That is where Ms. Farber’s comparison falls apart. Ms. Farber is again correct when she writes:

By the time the story appears in the “scientific literature” the truth is no longer raw or moving.

The scientific literature is not like biographies or fiction; it is not meant to be “raw or moving”.

Here are some examples from the VAERS showing the anecdotal evidence reported and the subsequent results of the scientific investigation. Here is one from Moms Who Vax taken word for word from VAERS:

“Information has been received from a nurse practitioner concerning a patient’s nephew, a 17-year-old male consumer who she “thought” was vaccinated with a dose of GARDASIL (lot number not provided) in November 2010. The nurse practitioner stated that two weeks after the patient received the dose of GARDASIL, approximately November 2010 (also reported as “two weeks ago” on approximately 01-APR-2011), the patient died of sudden cardiac death on the lacrosse field. Unspecified medical treatment was given. It was unspecified if any lab diagnostic test were performed. The cause of death was sudden cardiac death. Sudden cardiac death was considered to be immediately life-threatening and disabling by the reporting nurse practitioner. Additional information has been requested.”


This example shows that the person making the initial report said the patient had recieved the vaccine “two weeks ago” when it was actually 5 months before death. The person who initially reported this did not intentionally give false information.

Here is another example from The Poxes Blog taken directly from the VAERS:

“”Brother states patient developed “”Transverse myelitis”” from the MMR vaccine then the patient “”Fell down and died””. Developed paralysis in legs one week after shot. 8/11/08-records received for DOS 12/12/07-1/6/08- DX: Paraparesis secondary to transverse myelitis. Death secondary to pulmonary embolism. Admitted for evaluation of lower extremity weakness for 2-3 weeks, with shooting pain in feet on 12/14/07-balance difficulties noted, tingling in left upper extremity prior to hospitalization Upgoing plantar reflex noted on right side, lower extremity reflex loss at ankles and left patella. Autopsy refused by family.”” “Lung cancer 2 years with chemotherapy 8/11/08-records received- NCV abnormal evidence of primary muscle disorder. Glucose elevated, AST and ALT elevation of 144 and 177. MRI normal. CSF leukocytosis. Culture negative. on 1/6/08 began hypo” (Report cuts off.)

Here we have a possibly distraught and grieving brother who claims his brother got an MMR and then he just “fell down and died.”  But the investigation shows the patient died months after the shot and had lung cancer and died of a lung embolism.

Those are just two examples and if you peruse those two blogs above or the VAERS you can find many more examples where the family made a claim that was drastically different from the investigation. But because Ms. Farber first got me thinking about this subject, let me close with a couple of examples that display Ms. Farber’s penchant for emotional hyperbole. Maybe this will shed light on why she is not the authority on why anecdotal evidence is on par with scientific research.

Celia Ingrid Farber

Yesterday at 12:49pm · Edited · 

You know who would have really understood what is happening to us here? How we are becoming desensitized barbarians amidst CDC generated measles scare propaganda (that they utterly failed to produce on behalf of those afflicted by brain damage or “autism” following vaccinations, or the thousands of dead babies (“SIDS”) or the hundreds of dead teenage girls after Gardisil, etc etc? (emphasis mine)

Celia Ingrid Farber

February 1 at 9:22pm · 

The vaccination based, Pharma-based, chemical-laden, fearful, nature hating, death focused industries (emphasis mine) are still functioning but they are not the future.

Life is the future and they are a parasite that humanity is shedding. (emphasis mine)

Lest you think I am being too hard on Ms. Farber, I will leave you with a taste of how she feels about those who disagree with her. And I will let her own superior, judgemental, condescending words speak for themselves:

Something’s not quite right with people who are totally rejecting of “anecdotal” evidence. Those who want to boil it off and go straight to the “scientific literature,” surely you understand this is your anxiety about the truth and not a problem with the truth itself?

Because Ms. Farber knows you better than you know yourself. And she’ll tell you so.

Article in Texas Lawyer About Baker V DeShong

This article discusses the potential for this case to set precedent regarding award of attorney fees to prevailing defendants in trademark cases. The article also discloses that Baker’s own attorney says Baker’s original lawsuit “is an off-the-planet bizarre set of facts.”

Sane Vs Crazy. Rational Vs Demented. My Conversation with Elizabeth Ely

It was with great reluctance and trepidation that I agreed to be interviewed by Elizabeth Ely for her podcast, How Positive Are You? Remember, this is the woman who in June of 2014 had a very emotional public meltdown because two people made a personal healthcare decision for themselves and their newborn baby. Her histrionics were so over the top and disturbing that a former dissident felt the need to discuss it.

Because of some recent outrageous and untrue comments she made about me, I requested that she have me on her show (where she had made the untrue statements) so we could clear this up. When she surprisingly invited me on, I made it clear that I only wanted to find common ground. I told her I thought it would be in the best interests of both dissidents and orthodox alike to stop perpetuating the myth that the other side were monsters and animals: I made it clear that we should acknowledge our common humanity.

Well, it went over like a fart in a space suit.

After about 40 minutes that slowly devolved into Ms. Ely going off topic and putting words in my mouth, she finally ripped off her mask to reveal her true self. And it was not pretty. As a matter of fact, she should be embarrassed and ashamed.

Ms. Ely called me a sociopath several times and doubled down on her horrendous accusation. She also said that my first blog, Dissidents4Dumbees, was solely a vehicle to disparage a dead woman and her dead baby; meaning Christine Maggiore and Eliza Jane Scovill.

At first I laughed at her ridiculous accusation that I was a sociopath. But after she continued with that assertion, doubled down and then said that completely horrendous lie about Christine Maggiore and EJ, I hung up on her.

Elizabeth Ely is one of the most prominent and vocal of the dissident group. How can anyone take a group seriously with such an emotionally unhinged and soulless person representing them?

Celia Farber Responds to my Post with Name-Calling Back-Pedaling and Denial

A few days ago I wrote a post about Celia Farber’s insistence that measles does not kill. After seeing my post, instead of taking the opportunity to clarify her position in a thoughtful way, Ms. Farber unleashed an emotional response calling me a “moron, hopeless liar and pharma shill” on her facebook page. She also blocked me so that I could not respond. Then Ms. Farber came to my blog and left three equally emotional comments and passive/aggressively demanded that I post a correction. Even though Ms. Farber has blocked me from her facebook page, I have decided to post her comments here as she has asked. I have no problem showing the other person’s view point. This nasty, reactionary bullshit is for children.

I am not going to re-hash my original post. I stand by my interpretation of her comments. And the fact that she went back one day after my post to clarify her meaning (see below) proves that Ms. Farber does indeed agree that her original comments were not as clear as she pretends.

Here is her facebook comment:

Celia Ingrid Farber This moron says I said something I never said. I cited two precise years in two posts and last ten years in another. I NEVER said there have been no deaths from measles ever. But what can you do about hopeless liars and pharma shills?

The comments below are the ones Ms. Farber left at this blog.

NOTE: I do not have a comment section at this blog for this very reason. I learned with my first blog that comments can get out of hand and way off topic very quickly. But feel free to leave comments. I will respond privately to each comment left. I responded privately to Ms. Farber. I even apologized to her for past transgressions. Two days later, she has still not responded to my email nor my apology.

You’re a moron. I cited precise years in two posts on which there were no deaths and in another cited the fact that there have been none in the last TEN years. I never said no measles deaths ever. You even quote me NOT saying what you say I said. You’re hopelessly dishonest and emotionally unbalanced. (emphasis mine) Then again “we all know that.” This concludes my one visit to this filthy place once every two years. No, make that “ever.”

Ms. Farber comes back to “visit this filthy place” again to show me she clarified her statement on her facebook page:

Why does she speak of measles deaths when there are no deaths from measles? (clarification added Jan 31: I don’t mean ever. No deaths in US in last 10 years as I have made clear in every post. I mean NOW. There “ARE” refers to now. In this time in history, there are no deaths from measles.)
I posted some stats yesterday. (see below.)

Then Ms. Farber decides to “visit this filthy place” a third time:

If I had said, “There have never been any deaths from measles” you would be right. I didn’t say that. “are” referred to the present day situation dating back at least 10 years in the US. Please clarify this misunderstanding. If you are at all honest you will publish my response. Are you honest enough to publish my response?

Yes, Ms. Farber, I am honest enough to publish your response(s): All of them. And thank you for proving me right as well as who is truly “emotionally unbalanced”.

 

Celia Farber Declares: “There Are No Deaths From Measles. Not Usually. Not Ever.”

We all know Celia Farber as the emotionally high-strung but lovable AIDS Denialist. As with most AIDS Deniers Ms. Farber is drawn to conspiracy theories. For quite some time she has been promoting the scientifically disproved “Vaccines Cause Autism” gambit. And now with the Measles outbreak at Disneyland, she is vehemently and angrily declaring that measles does not kill. She has even gone to the extreme of picking fights with her own facebook friends. Unfortunately Ms. Farber is just flat wrong. She has Cherry Picked her data.

Below I have done a copy/paste from one of the many facebook posts where Ms. Farber goes off the rails about this subject. The post I chose is an article about Melinda Gates defending the measles vaccine. Ms. Farber says such things as:

“Why does she speak of measles deaths when there are no deaths from measles?”

“Please will you tell me on what data you base your assumption that measles is fatal, either usually or ever?”

“I was asking if you are willing to look at data with me. i.e., for example, the stark contrast between measles danger and that depicted in the media.”

And my personal favorite:

“My training is in reviewing and assessing the weight and veracity of information, in many forms.”

The Data

Even though at one point Ms. Farber does mention the “dangers” of the measles, she is mostly focused on deaths. And not all deaths around the world from measles. No, that would put a damper on her righteous indignation. Ms. Farber only seems to care about deaths in America. Her data is carefully selected from the CDC MMWR which she limits to the first 8 months of 2013 and the first 5 months of 2014 when there were no deaths reported. Well, that settles it! Measles does not kill. Oh, wait, that is not completely true. Ms. Farber must have over looked this information from the CDC as well:

  • Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% of the cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992.
  • Since 1995, an average of 1 measles-related death per year has been reported.

Who really cares if only one person dies a year? That is pretty insignificant. Unless, of course, it is your child or loved one. Oh, but wait again. There are people outside of the U.S. aren’t there? What does the World Health Organization have to say about Measles Related Deaths?

Key facts

  • Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
  • In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
  • Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
  • In 2013, about 84% of the world’s children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
  • During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health

How do you like that? Measles does indeed kill! Celia Farber is wrong. But why are there so few deaths in America? Well, it wasn’t always that way. It seems those pesky vaccines that Ms. Farber hates so much are the culprits that stopped U.S. deaths:

In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.

The truth is vaccines are good. Ms. Farber is wrong. But why is death the only thing that Ms. Farber seems to care about? The pain and suffering from measles can be horrendous. Pneumonia and encephalitis are no fun. And going blind later in life would suck, too.

For some reason Ms. Farber is anti-science, unless it suits her agenda. She seems to believe one scientist at a time in one field at a time. She did it with Duesberg and HIV and she is doing it again with Andrew Wakefield and vaccines. Forget the fact that Wakefield did one study of about 10 kids as opposed to the many studies done with thousands and thousands of kids that blows Wakefield’s bullshit study to smithereens. No, Ms. Farber loves her martyrs and she will damn well defend them loudly and vehemently no matter how wrong she is. And Ms. Farber has a great track record of being wrong.

Farber Facebook Tirade

Celia Ingrid Farber

January 26 at 11:19pm · 

Why does she speak of measles deaths when there are no deaths from measles?
I posted some stats yesterday. (see below.)

Propaganda depresses me so much, but I don’t know why. Nothing depresses me more, I think. The headline alone is enough to make you want to set your hair on fire.

This is not journalism. I’m not even sure it passes as good propaganda. It’s just watery slime.

http://www.vox.com/…/26/7907…/melinda-gates-measles-vaccines

 

Melinda Gates has the perfect response to the anti-vaccine movement

Americans have “forgotten what measles deaths look like.”

VOX.COM

Like · Share

·         13 people like this.

·         1 share

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Because she is a “pod person,” that’s why, and if there’s one thing pod people love it’s vaccinations, especially in Africa. Pod people believe that white Western people must at all turns inject Africans with all kinds of things, and seize control of their fertility by any means, all the while we rape their land and plunder their resources. Colonize and terrorize them with fake sexually transmitted viral illnesses that supposedly stem from the too muchness of their African sexuality.

Beware of pod people. This is what they look like. (Photo above.)

January 26 at 11:49pm · Edited · Like · 12

·        

Jerry Guern When I traveled would rural Malawi, Tanzania, and Ethiopia ten years ago, it was a fact in minds of every African I talked to that AIDS was created by Western doctors. I didn’t know what to make of that.

Yesterday at 12:08am · Like

·        

Rebecca Romani Weren’t there two deaths here in San Diego?

Yesterday at 1:11am · Like

·        

Laura Seegers What you should make of that is that Africans are not as stupid as they are made out to be.

Yesterday at 1:51am · Like · 4

·        

Jim Te Water Naude What makes anyone think measles is not deadly?

Yesterday at 9:56am · Like

·        

Brandy Wood So the fact that there are hospitalizations is not of any concern? We have to wait for death to be concerned?

Yesterday at 10:19am · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber You guys don’t get what they are doing do you? Jim–what makes anyone think measles is deadly. I am officially offering to have this debate with you, here and now. I posted stats yesterday. Did you see the CDC stats I posted? May I refer you to them? (Scroll down on my page.) Please will you tell me on what data you base your assumption that measles is fatal, either usually or ever?

Yesterday at 11:38am · Edited · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Brandy Wood: I am reposting data, which I hope you will take a moment to look at. First this:

Perspective on Measles hysteria, which should really be called Anti-Wakefield hysteria:
During the first 8 months of 2013, the CDC reported 159 cases of measles in adults and children, including infants.
There were zero deaths.
From CDC Website:
During January 1–August 24, 2013, a total of 159 cases were reported to CDC from 16 states and New York City (Figure 2). Patients ranged in age from 0 days to 61 years; 18 (11%) were aged <12 months, 40 (25%) were aged 1–4 years, 58 (36%) were aged 5–19 years, and 43 (27%) were aged ≥20 years. Among the 159 cases, 17 (11%) persons required hospitalization, including four patients diagnosed with pneumonia. No deaths were reported.

Yesterday at 11:08am · Edited · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Brandy Wood and Jim Te Water Naude: In the first five months of 2014, there were 288 cases of measles reported to the CDC, from 18 states, ranging in age from 2 weeks to 65 years. Of those, 15% were hospitalized.
There were no deaths.
From the CDC’s website:
Patients with reported measles cases this year have ranged in age from 2 weeks to 65 years; 18 (6%) were aged <12 months, 48 (17%) were aged 1–4 years, 71 (25%) were aged 5–19 years, and 151 (52%) were aged ≥20 years. Forty-three (15%) were hospitalized, and complications have included pneumonia (five patients), hepatitis (one), pancytopenia (one), and thrombocytopenia (one). No cases of encephalitis and no deaths have been reported.

Yesterday at 11:10am · Like · 2

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Few hospitalizations (11% and 15%) and no deaths. (IN this slice of time/data.) Brandy, this is a yes or no question: Are the media drumming up a distorted picture of how “terrifying” measles is or are they being good reporters and getting it right? If the former, why? What’s behind it? Do you know anything about the cross-pollination of vaccine manufacturers and the Murdoch Empire’s board of directors? I do.

May I tell you about it?

GSK, manufacturer of MMR vaccine, exerts heavy influence and sits as board members on newspaper that attack Andy Wakefield, that ordered the hit job by Biran Deer. Yes, it’s that blatant.

Are we talking about this now or am I wasting my time? I only engage in conversations where both sides have gloves off and are willing to get into the dirt, with real facts. Not ideological positions.

Yesterday at 11:15am · Like · 1

·        

Brandy Wood I am more interested in the majority of scientific research than I am in ideology, which is why I vaccinate my kids and believe that global warming exists. I can absolutely agree that the tone of this article is preachy and self righteous. And, of course, uncalled for, when you look at the science. 15% hospitalization rate in a country without universal health care is a serious cause for alarm in my book. My kids was constipated and a visit to the ER cost is $2,100. Money we do not have. Not to mention the number of infections which can be picked up during a hospital stay. Melinda Gates existence is based on getting headlines, so I have no doubt that she dramatizes for effect, but it does not diminish the concerns about hospitalizations for me.

Yesterday at 11:43am · Like · 1

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Who’s talking about Global Warming Brandy? Who asked you not to vaccinate your kids? I was asking if you are willing to look at data with me. i.e., for example, the stark contrast between measles danger and that depicted in the media. I wonder if you have watched any of the video testimonials from thousands of parents whose kids regressed into autism within hours of getting vaccinated. I wonder if you have followed the disappeared CDC whistleblower story, or looked up the correlation between infant vaccinations and “SIDS.” I will keep posting data for you here (data, not opinion) and you can read it if you like. I am not asking to have any emotional discussions. My training is in reviewing and assessing the weight and veracity of information, in many forms.

Yesterday at 11:49am · Like · 1

·        

Jerry Guern Celia, I would certainly like to read more about the vaccine industry / media empire connections, if you have any links. Rebecca, I’d urge you to engage Celia on this topic; she’s tapped into a hell of a lot of important info and perspective that you’re NOT going to see in corporate media.

Yesterday at 11:57am · Like

·        

Celia Ingrid Farber Via a family blog, taken off the internet recently, after it started having too mud of an impact, and over one millions readers.

“AM I SCARED OF A MEASLES OUTBREAK?
No.
I can give my child 9 shots (3 doses of a 3-in-1 shot) for a disease that is not deadly, that a child is more likely to catch if they are vaccinated, that doesn’t offer permanent immunity, and that has high risks associated with the shot including seizures, encephalitis, blood disorders, sensory impairments, learning disabilities, immune system suppression, inflammatory bowel disease, inflammation of the brain, and many other severe allergic reactions.
Nope. I’ll just stick with my anti-vaccination movement label. And head off to Disneyland…”

Yesterday at 12:01pm · Like

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”)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P24
 
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.
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.