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.http://www.omsj.org/corrup…/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.

Another Case Perfect for (and Refused by) the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice/OMSJ

Last week I wrote about a case that perfectly fulfilled the Mission Statement of OMSJ:

·   To protect and defend the victims and witnesses of medical and scientific corruption

I will not re-hash that story or the (lack of) involvement by OMSJ. You can click the link above for the original story with update and here for the follow-up.

Now I have found another case that would also fulfill the mission statement of OMSJ. But just like the Bobby Russell case, OMSJ is not involved. I discovered the case of Noreen Gray-Martin in the comment section at ReThinking AIDS facebook page discussing the Bobby Russell case. The Gray-Martin case is about using the Electron Microscope as a diagnostic tool for HIV. (all comments are copy/pasted verbatim)

Noreen Gray-Martin It depends upon where he lives which governs the statute of limitation. I have the same problem with electron microscope since it goes back to the original test date. But I think that I could pursue the labs who continuously tell me that I have a viral load where Boston says it is not in me. But my problem is too, is it the standard of care issue.Right or wrong, it is the standard of care. Plus, add the fact that the attornies don’t understand the problem, making all of this about useless. I have a little over 7 months to pursue the lab issue, if I could find someone to take the case. (emphasis mine)
Noreen Gray-Martin Yes but we know the truth. Most believe the mainstream propaganda. Even the doctors. One older one told me yesterday that I was in denial even though my electron miscroscope could not find HIv me or others. Most of the doctors are not familiar with electron microscope and do not understand the flaws of HIV and sadly, they don’t want to know..

The truth is the Electron Microscope is not a proper tool for diagnosis of HIV. When I wrote this discussion of the dreadful EM research paper by Andrew Maniotis, I asked a PhD Scholar with the California Institute of Technology, Division of Biology to explain why EM was not used as a diagnostic tool for HIV. Here is that response:

Historically, electron microscopy has served as an effective method to identify viral agents of infection.  However, the use of electron microscopy as a diagnostic tool is limited by its requirement for a high concentration of particles in the clinical sample.  The limit of detection for diagnosis of a virus by electron microscopy is widely accepted as 10^6 -10^8 particles/ml.1 For HIV-1 patients, a “high” viral load may range from 10^4 – 10^6 HIV RNA copies/ml. Because each HIV particle carries 2 copies of the viral genome, 1×10^6 copies/ml would translate to 5×10^5 particles/ml, placing, in many instances, the positive detection of virus outside of the detection limit of electron microscopy.  Another consideration is that although HIV can be transmitted through blood and blood products, the viral burden in an infected individual is found primarily in the lymphatic tissue, not in the blood (HIV in the blood may represent just 2% of the total viral burden).  Finally, the detection of HIV in blood by electron microscopy may be further complicated by the structural pleomorphism the virus displays. 

  1. Hazelton and Gelderblom Emerg Infect Dis. Mar 2003; 9(3): 294–303
  2. Courtney V. Fletcher, Kathryn Staskus, etal January 27, 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1318249111

An actual expert gives several excellent reasons (and footnotes) why EM is not a proper diagnostic tool for HIV. Unfortunately, Mr. Baker’s opinion is more important to the AIDS Dissidents than real experts with years of study as well as hands-on research experience. Make no mistake about it; the false idea that EM can be used to diagnose HIV is a direct result of Mr. Baker’s words and actions.

Mr. Baker attempted to introduce EM in the case of Nushawn Williams as well as in a military case of “GBA”. Unfortunately for Mr. Baker, the prosecuting attorney in the military case challenged the laboratory being used and thus the validity of the results and got the EM thrown out. And the jury in the Nushawn Williams case just did not buy it. But none of that has an impact on Baker’s fans.

Mr. Baker has even taken it upon himself to claim that EM is the gold standard of HIV testing despite having done no research or published in any peer reviewed journals to substantiate his claim:

OMSJ experts contend that, as the “gold standard,” EM is the only reliable method that can identify the presence of the virus.

Mr. Baker has ventured beyond the confines of his own website to reach his supporters. He has gone straight to where he knows he can influence the greatest numbers: ReThinking AIDS facebook page. (emphasis mine)

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.

I admit that all of this information does not necessarily mean that it had any impact on Ms. Gray-Martin herself. However, I believe this comment clearly indicates that it was Clark Baker who has influenced her current belief in EM as a diagnostic tool for HIV.
Noreen Gray-Martin I will help but honestly I do no longer follow all of this. There comes a time when one has to move on. And many of get tired of the bickering back and forth between the rethinkers. Don’t be too harsh on Clark Baker, because as far as I know, he paid for many of us to be tested by electron microscope, which is not cheap! (emphasis mine)
If Mr. Baker truly believes in his own Mission Statement then why not help Ms. Gray-Martin with her lawsuit? This could be the perfect test case for Mr. Baker to prove that he is not tilting at windmills and his self professed “gold standard” is indeed all he has claimed. My fear is that these dissidents will never admit that their Knight in Shining Armour is fighting imaginary foes and jeopardizing their health in the process.

Clark Baker In Major Damage Control Mode: The Sock Puppet Chronicles

Eight days I ago I wrote this piece highlighting the case of Bobby Russell, a case that would perfectly fulfill the Mission Statement of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice/OMSJ:

To protect and defend the victims and witnesses of medical and scientific corruption

I pointed out, according to Bobby Russell himself, OMSJ could not help financially with the last $12,000 Mr. Russell needed to continue his case. Thanks to David Crowe at ReThinking AIDS facebook, that piece got quite a bit of attention from the very people who support OMSJ. Perhaps it has garnered too much attention.

Eight days after my original post was shared by Mr. Crowe, a comment from “Bobby Russell” has appeared at ReThinking AIDS facebook page.

(I have copy/pasted the comment below. I do not believe the real Bobby Russell actually wrote the comment and I will explain below.)

In the comment, “Mr. Russell” has now changed his tune and says OMSJ “paid more than $100,000 to assist me in my case.”  That directly contradicts Mr. Russell’s personal message to me September 21 stating “they seem to think they did not have the funds to do anything or help me so I am on my own here I guess.”

It also contradicts what Mr. Baker himself said at RA facebook on Sept. 27: “We spent thousands to assist Mr. Russell.” Notice Mr. Baker did not even say tens of thousands. And if Mr. Baker had already spent $100,000 as “Mr. Russell” says, then why not just cough up the last $12,000? It just does not make sense. However, if it was true and “Mr. Russell” or Mr. Baker would prove it, I would be happy to change what I wrote, despite “Mr. Russell’s” comment:

Since writing this hate piece against Baker and OMSJ, DeShong has made no attempt to fix the lies he posted about Baker. A reading of his other hateful lies suggests that he never will – that lying about Baker is his intent.

How can I fix what has not been proven or even attempted to be proven? What I can do is attempt to prove why I believe the real Bobby Russell did not write the comment and that a sock puppet much closer to Mr. Baker is the true author.

1.       Six of the eight links in the comment are all to Baker’s OMSJ site in the form of a pdf. Even the link that should be to my original blog post that “Russell” is commenting on is a pdf to Baker’s OMSJ site.

2.       Despite knowing nothing about me, “Russell” knows that my not-so-pseudo-pseudonym “Newton DeShong” (I really thought using my same last name would throw people off) is the same as another of Baker’s most hated adversaries, Seth Kalichman: Newton is the same alias used by his handler Seth Kalichman, who also operates a hate blog.

3.       “Russell” would have had to do some deep digging to find out that ancient bit of trivia about Kalichman using the name “Joe Newton”.

4.       “Russell’s” use of the trite Bakerism “propagandist”, especially in connection with Gallo, Moore etc. That is more specific knowledge for someone who had no idea who I was before I approached him.

All these suspicions add up to the transparent and obvious fact that a sock puppet actually wrote the comment and not the real Bobby Russell. It is obvious that Mr. Baker realizes the impact of the facts presented at my site and that even his most ardent followers may be seeing through the veil. So why pull such a transparent stunt? It could be desperation or it could just be one more example that Mr. Baker will say or do what ever he needs to fit the situation.

Comment from “Bobby Russell”


Bobby Russell Dear Friends:

I recently was approached by Jeffrey Todd DeShong, who used my brief conversation with me to write a disgusting piece about Clark Baker and OMSJ on his blog. Nothing of what DeShong wrote about Clark Baker or OMSJ is true, which appears to be a characteristic of everything I’ve read at DeShong’s blog.


At the time, I didn’t know that DeShong was a long-time propagandist for Robert Gallo, John Moore, Seth Kalichman, James Murtagh, and other AIDS Truthers:


In fact, producing “anti-Baker websites” appears to have been DeShong’s intent for MANY years:


On Friday, September 19, 2014, the court dismissed my lawsuit, claiming that I had failed to file my lawsuit in time. When my attorney and I approached Mr. Baker for additional funding for an appeal, Mr. Baker said that OMSJ could provide no more financial assistance in the case, but recommended that I use social marketing (Facebook, Twitter) to raise funds for an appeal.

The next day, I was contacted on Facebook by DeShong, who identified himself as “Newton DeShong”.


At the time, I didn’t know who he was. DeShong wrote to me: “I have seen your request for donations at ReThinking AIDS. Is it not possible for OMSJ to fund this appeal? Or couldn’t Mr. Baker and his team handle it pro-bono? I thought that was what OMSJ was all about.”

When I received his message the next day, I wrote, “I have asked them and they seem to think they did not have the funds to do anything or help me so I am on my own here I guess and if I cannot raise the money, then I guess its over…”

The next week (Wednesday, 25 September), “Newton DeShong” wrote back with a link to a story on the website HIVInnocenceGroupTruth.com, claiming that OMSJ had refused to take the case. In his blog, DeShong insinuated that OMSJ and Clark Baker were less than honorable and that Mr. Baker might be using donations for something other than defending victims of medical and scientific corruption.


Since DeShong posted these comments, I’ve discovered that his actual name is Jeffrey Todd DeShong:


Although his photograph is not posted on the “Newton” Facebook Page, a photo of his dog is posted there, which is the same dog that he is seen holding on his other Facebook Page:


Newton is the same alias used by his handler Seth Kalichman, who also operates a hate blog.

Since writing this hate piece against Baker and OMSJ, DeShong has made no attempt to fix the lies he posted about Baker. A reading of his other hateful lies suggests that he never will – that lying about Baker is his intent.

For the record, Clark Baker and OMSJ have paid more than $100,000 to assist me in my case. He’s spent thousands more to assist others, but he needs your help. If you wish to do so – and if you are angry about the way DeShong libeled Mr. Baker and OMSJ, please make your tax deductible donation to OMSJ at:


Thank you!

Bobby Russell

8 hrs · Like · 1

Here is the complete message I sent to Mr. Russell on Sept 25 alerting him that I had written a post about his lawsuit. Notice I also asked him for an interview and I disclosed the nature of the interview. I am not sure how the “real” Mr. Russell could feign such ignorance as to who I am.

Newton DeShong

I wrote a post about your case and listed your website and Go Fund Me page. I hope this gets you some money. I would also be interested in interviewing you, but mostly about your experience with the dissidents like Baker and Crowe and Ely and what your current views about HIV and the meds and the tests are now. Here is the post about your case: http://hivinnocencegrouptruth.com/2014/09/24/bobby-russell-case-perfect-for-office-of-medical-and-scientific-justice-omsj-refuses-to-take-case/

Clark Baker Is Misunderstood: Parts 3 & 4 of a Series

I am often amazed by the sheer audacity of Mr. Baker to completely change his statements to fit the situation or to shamelessly mislead. As parts 3 and 4 in a continuing series I will present two examples of such exaggerated behavior in his Federal lawsuit against me.

III. Mr. Baker tries desperately to make the court believe that he is not an AIDS Denialist

Paragraph 7 of Baker’s affidavit he writes:

Since 2008, DeShong and his “colleagues” have alleged that I am an “AIDS dissenter or “AIDS denialist.” …I don’t know how to respond because DeShong’s mischaracterizations have nothing to do with my business operations or income. Neither OMSJ nor the HIV Innocence Group has anything to do with the alleged debate over AIDS.

Mr. Baker’s claim of “I don’t know how to respond” is so disingenuously melodramatic that every time I read it I picture him typing with one hand while clutching his pearls with the other. There is no need for me to go into detail to prove Baker’s assertion that he is not an AIDS denialist and that he is not engaged in the “alleged debate over AIDS.” It is so preposterous it is laughable and so obviously untrue as to completely strip him of any credibility.

I believe part of the reason he is trying to distance himself from being an AIDS denialist is because this lawsuit is not only about shutting me up: It is also about deposing Dr. Robert Gallo. (We have made this fact a major part of my defense.) I know this from personal experience when Mr. Baker himself told me as much on a phone call after I won arbitration. Mr. Baker also told Robert Scott Bell the same thing, just in more detail on The RSB Show July 14, 2011:

1:22:56 CB: Actually Robert Gallo received a subpoena on one of our cases as well last year. As did Sam Broder who is behind the AZT debacle and both of them basically forwarded their subpoenas to the NIH. The NIH stonewalls such subpoenas they don’t listen to state subpoenas. They simply ignore them. And it cost so much time and energy we basically learned in our future subpoenas to them they will be Federal Subpoenas. And Federal Courts don’t let the NIH ignore such things.

This leads me to the second and most egregious part of this post:

IV. Mr. Baker tries to minimize the supposed importance of Gallo’s Egg.

Paragraph 21 of Baker’s affidavit he briefly mentions Gallo’s Egg without naming it:

DeShong claims that I have “a strong interest in discrediting Robert Gallo.” (DeShong 5) In 2008-2009 I conducted a brief investigation of Gallo.

Here is how Mr. Baker originally described this “brief investigation”:

“…I have become involved in the most important criminal racketeering case of my investigative career.”

“The investigation I call Gallo’s Egg took me from America’s “War on Cancer” (1971-1981) to the early history of HIV and AIDS. It reaches from the cities of West Hollywood and San Francisco to the continents of Africa, Asia, and Australia. It led me to the steps of the National Institutes of Health, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and some of America’s most prestigious universities and research centers. It involves hundreds of billions of dollars of misdirected tax-supported funding and some of the most financially successful pharmaceutical companies in the world.”

“I have never written about anything more important. This story changed my life, and if you have the time and patience to understand what I have written, it may change yours as well.”

Such a radical change in Baker’s description of Gallo’s Egg specifically for this lawsuit can only be seen as perfunctory. (Wait, no, that’s not the right word. I know it begins with “per” and ends with “ry” but I’m not sure what the legal word is at the moment.)

But the absurd hypocrisy does not end there. Throughout his website Mr. Baker repeatedly provides hyperlinks to Gallo’s Egg from the main page as well as sub-pages.

On the page entitled Winning Criminal HIV Cases, the very first sentence links to Gallo’s Egg:

Shortly after I completed my first pharmaceutical corruption investigation in 2008

On the Due Diligence page he writes (in third person, no less):

In 2008, Mr. Baker investigated their allegations and corroborated many of Ms. Farber’s findings.  His investigation resulted in Farber’s libel lawsuit against AIDSTruth cohort Richard Jefferys.  That case is still pending.

The phrase “investigated their allegations” links to Gallo’s Egg on Mr. Baker’s Ex Liberal in Hollywood site. By the way, the case of Farber V Jefferys is not “still pending”. Farber lost that suit in November of 2011, almost three years ago.

It is important to note that Mr. Baker attributes a lawsuit filed by Celia Farber in New York Supreme Court completely to his “brief investigation of Gallo”.

You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Baker. Either Gallo’s Egg is:

“…the most important criminal racketeering case of my investigative career.” And you “have never written about anything more important.” And it was the sole reason for “Farber’s libel lawsuit against AIDSTruth cohort Richard Jefferys.”


“…a brief investigation of Gallo.

I guess in Mr. Baker’s world you can have it both ways. And if someone calls you out on it, sue them.

Donations Accepted for Baker V DeShong

If you would like to make a donation and help me beat Mr. Baker in Circuit Court, please click this link.

Thank you.

Bobby Russell Case Perfect for Office of Medical and Scientific Justice: OMSJ Refuses to Take Case: UPDATE

UPDATE of Sept 27, 2014 at bottom of post: Mr. Baker weighs in claiming he has helped Mr. Russell and “spent thousands”. Unfortunately that contradicts what Mr. Russell himself wrote to me several days before. Who is being truthful?

NOTE: Many people from ReThinking AIDS have visited this site because of this post. I hope you all look over this site with an open mind and see how Mr. Baker is not being forthcoming with the information he is sharing with you about OMSJ and the HIV Innocence Group.

2nd NOTE: Sept 25 I removed the link to Mr. Russell’s Go Fund Me page so that Mr. Baker will not be able to falsely claim that said link makes my site commercial.

Original Post

The case of Bobby Russell is about a man allegedly misdiagnosed as HIV+ because no doctor read the negative confirmatory test. As a result, Mr. Russell took ARV’s for close to a decade. The case was high profile back in the fall of 2013 and was covered extensively by the general media. Mr. Russell’s website is here. His site contains numerous links to interviews and articles.

The HIV/AIDS Dissidents also ran with the story including podcasts on How Positive Are You (HPAY) with Elizabeth Ely and Russell’s attorney (who is no longer on the case), a HPAY podcast interview with Mr. Russell himself as well as two articles at Clark Baker’s OMSJ.org site. It seemed as if Mr. Russell would be the next poster boy for AIDS Dissidence.

But then the publicity went away until the ReThinking AIDS facebook page posted a recent interview with Mr. Russell and David Crowe at The Progressive Radio Network. The interview highlights the fact that Mr. Russell only has 20 days left to come up with $12,000 to continue the case due to a summary judgement based on Statute of Limitations. Mr. Russell has set up a Go Fund Me Page to help reach that goal.

I do not know much about the specifics nor the merits of this case. I do, however, find it strange that Mr. Russell does not have an attorney for a suit like this. If there were legal grounds, attorneys would be lining up for such a lucrative suit.

The most incredibly strange aspect of this case is that Clark Baker and his Office of Medical and Scientific Justice are not part of this suit. The plight of Mr. Russell seems to perfectly fulfill the OMSJ Mission Statement:

  • To protect and defend the victims and witnesses of medical and scientific corruption

Clark Baker should have the resources to handle this case with no problem. This is how he describes OMSJ in his second affidavit, paragraph 9, in his Federal suit against me while discussing the case of Sgt. David Gutierrez:

“I offered OMSJ’s pro bono services from my team of experts who include chemists, an HIV test patent holder, licensed medical doctors, and attorneys experienced in HIV criminal defense.”

From that statement by Mr. Baker himself, it would seem he not only has the resources to handle the case, but the case fits perfectly with Mr. Baker’s own agenda when he created OMSJ. Why in the world would Mr. Baker refuse to help? Mr. Russell told me it is due to money:

I have asked them and they seem to think they did not have the funds to do anything or help me so I am on my own here I guess and if I cannot raise the money, then I guess its over.

It may not be a money issue. Perhaps Mr. Baker told that to Mr. Russell simply because the case is not winnable. Or perhaps it is indeed a money issue. If Mr. Baker were not wasting so much money on a lawsuit that he has lost in arbitration and was dismissed in Federal Court and he has appealed to the 5th Circuit, perhaps there would be money to fulfill the Mission of OMSJ. My attorneys are currently seeking costs from Mr. Baker of $98,000.

This comment from David Crowe at RA facebook confirms that this case is perfectly suited for OMSJ:

  • David Crowe Damian Laster, I agree with you, but as a practical matter it’s difficult enough to get a case like Bobby’s into court. We have to chip away at it unless we can put together the perfect storm (hard nosed lawyer willing to work for no money up front … who gets the AIDS lie, plaintiff with no other confounding issues … and a few other things).

In Mr. Crowe’s comment, he mentions a “lawyer willing to work for no money up front…” This seems like a great investment for Mr. Baker. All Mr. Russell needs is $12,000. That may seem like a lot of money to you and me, but from this Guide Star report on the finances of OMSJ, 12 Grand is nothing. OMSJ received donations of over $421K in 2012 alone.

So where do the donations come from? Mr. Baker has never revealed that. So anyone who has donated to Mr. Baker’s “cause” at OMSJ or HIV Innocence Group should ask themselves where their hard earned money has gone.

Something else that has come out of my investigation into the noble cause of Mr. Russell is just how much influence the every day Dissident has on “the cause”. It is obvious that they are not screaming for help from Mr. Baker, the only person within the AIDS Dissident movement who is really situated to make a legal difference. Where is the outrage? Where are the demands to actually do something?

I believe the answer is obvious: There are not enough AIDS ReThinkers to make a difference. (RA wants you to believe there over 6,200 supposed members of RA facebook, but that is falsely inflated.) You can see that is true just from the Go Fund Me Page set up by Mr. Russell. That page has received $215 out of a needed $20 Grand by all of FOUR people. And NONE of those four is from Clark Baker!

This is an injustice and not from the medical establishment. As this article demonstrates, there is not a case here:

“We are pleased that the Court has granted summary judgment to the University’s physicians. While this legal ruling was based on statute of limitations, we feel equally strong that the underlying allegations of misdiagnosis had no merit. The court record includes evidence that Mr. Russell has had 5 subsequent Western Blot tests that were positive for HIV after the very first Western Blot test was negative.”

If there truly were over 6 thousand AIDS ReThinkers, then it would be no problem to fund Mr. Russell’s lawsuit; less than $2 per person. But the number of members at the ReThinking AIDS facebook page is really irrelevant. The real issue here is why The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice has turned its back on a person that fits the Mission Statement of OMSJ like a glove: Perhaps it is because it is a glove in the vain of OJ Simpson.

UPDATE: Mr. Baker commented at the RA facebook page discussing this very post. As I wrote above, Mr. Baker’s new revelation completely contradicts what Mr. Russell wrote to me several days ago. Either Baker is trying to save face due to the popularity of this post, or Mr. Russell was not being honest in an attempt to gather more donations. I will provide the facts and leave it up to the reader to decide.


  • Clark Baker We spent thousands to assist Mr. Russell. The biggest obstacle we face is cases like this is what they call the “medical standard of care” – i.e., the doctor/hospital is not at fault “if everybody” does it wrong. What’s even more perverse is that doctors who understand the science and unreliability of tests deviate from doing it wrong risk medical board complaints and the loss of their license. This is how the corruption and incompetence is enforced. Mr. Russell’s doctor was not not just another doctor – she’s the elected president of the American Medical Association (AMA). These are tough cases. As for the story above by “HIVInnocenceGroupTruth”, that hate blog is managed by Todd DeShong – an unaccomplished 50-year-old alcoholic gay activist (lives with his mother) who is groomed and managed by Gallo, Kalichman, Moore, and the AIDSTruthers. DeShong is particularly attractive to these goons because he is judgment-proof (no assets). Gallo’s goons pay for his legal defense to attack/harass/defame me/OMSJ. We’re slowly peeling their onion with a lawsuit, but it takes time and money. If you want to help, a recurring monthly donation of $5 or more will be applied to our case. http://www.omsj.org/get-involved/donate

And here is Mr. Russell’s response when I asked him a direct question about the involvement of OMSJ. Here is the question and response in full.

  • Conversation started September 20
  • 9/20, 9:42am

    My facebook name redacted for privacy issues.
    I have seen your request for donations at ReThinking AIDS. Is it not possible for OMSJ to fund this appeal? Or couldn’t Mr. Baker and his team handle it pro-bono? I thought that was what OMSJ was all about.
  • Sunday
  • Bobby W. Russell

    I have asked them and they seem to think they did not have the funds to do anything or help me so I am on my own here I guess and if I cannot raise the money, then I guess its over. I will refried you as I had thought you might have been an ad. I am sorry but will send a friend request back t o you.

Mr. Baker claims he “spent thousands” (I assume U.S. dollars, but who knows with Mr. Baker: He may have meant hours.) However, Mr. Russell clearly says that OMSJ “did not have the funds to do anything”.  Using the word “funds” when asked about Russell’s request for monetary donations is unambiguous that Mr. Baker has not contributed any money at all. Once again I have presented facts.

It is also quite humorous to make note of another part of Mr. Baker’s comment. He claims that this blog is a “hate blog” with the purpose to “attack/harass/defame me/OMSJ.”  Why is that humorous? Because Mr. Baker seems to not even realize the irony of his hypocrisy. While claiming that I am attacking and harassing and defaming Mr. Baker and OMSJ, he does so by attacking and harassing and defaming me in the process. His exact quote:

“Todd DeShong – an unaccomplished 50-year-old alcoholic gay activist (lives with his mother)…” with “no assets”.

To me that is some funny sh*t! Of course I am used to it. In the past Baker has also said that I live in my mother’s basement, that I clean bed pans in a hospital and that I make less than minimum wage. The truth is, anyone who resorts to such a characterization of their critic shows their own immaturity and childishness. It also shows how desperate and scared Mr. Baker is. If I am so “unaccomplished”, why bother with me at all, much less spend over $100,000 (and counting) trying shut me up? I think we all know the answer to that.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.