Monthly Archives: January 2012

Office of Medical and Scientific Justice: Reach, Impact & Influence

Clark Baker claims that OMSJ is incredibly important, powerful and influential.  It is so powerful and influential that Mr. Baker recently claimed he and his OMSJ are the sole catalyst for all humanitarians around the world to begin the work of decriminalizing HIV laws.  Because of these immaculate claims, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at just how much traffic he gets at his website and therefore just how much influence this site truly has.

I was amazed to find that the Alexa Ranking for is quite abysmal indeed.  Mr. Baker’s site, which includes HIV Innocence Group, has an Alexa Ranking of 1,761,973.  That is terrible.  For a comparison, let’s look at other single blogger sites in the HIV/AIDS realm:

  1. = 1,761,973
  2.   HIVSkeptic = 1,054,383
  3.   ResistanceIsFruitful = 853,807
  4.   DenyingAIDS = 780,491 an HIV orthodox site

If you are not familiar with how Alexa ranks websites, let me explain.  It does not merely tally up the number of visits per day, it also relies on the number of “clicks” each visitor makes as well as other sites that link into a particular site.  For instance, Mr. Baker has 179 other sites that link to  That is very impressive.  So why does it not translate to a higher ranking?  If a site has many other sites linking in, and still has a terrible ranking, this is even more telling of just how pathetic a site’s reach and influence truly are.

Another driving factor that increases a site’s Alexa Ranking, as I said above, is the number of clicks each visitor makes.  And Mr. Baker’s site is set up in such a way that this feature alone should sky rocket his site’s ranking.  For instance, every post at only shows the title of the post and two or three sentences.  Each visitor must click the post to read it.  But that is just the beginning with  Each post literally contains 40% of hyperlinks.  For a reader to really understand what Mr. Baker is trying to convey, it is necessary to click on most if not all of those hyperlinks.

Lastly is the number of new posts.  The more times a blogger posts new content, the more often a visitor is likely to return. has been up and running for several years which is plenty of time to garner a loyal following.  And Mr. Baker adds new content several times a week.  So again I must ask, why does all of this not translate to a better Alexa Ranking?

It’s quite interesting to see that among the sites that deal with HIV/AIDS dissidence, the top ranked site is an “orthodox” site.  This tells me that more people like to get their information from a reputable, credible source.  And if you look closely at Denying AIDS, you will see that it does not try as hard as OMSJ does.  It does not have extensive hyperlinks nor does Dr. Kalichman add new content very often.  No, Denying AIDS simply gets much more traffic from people who want information from an educated source, not from a conspiracy theorist who lies incessantly.

This is just one more bit of evidence to prove just how delusional Clark Baker is.

U.S. Air Force Slams Clark Baker and OMSJ as Frauds

Case: Sgt David Gutierrez

This is the case of a U.S. Air Force Officer who tested HIV+ and potentially exposed hundreds of men and women to the virus by attending swingers parties with his wife and gay bath houses by himself.  The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 8 years in prison.  Clark Baker has filed an appeal based solely on the defense not accepting an offer of help from OMSJ and not for any legal justification.  Clark Baker accuses the defense attorneys of conspiracy, incompetence and no interest in putting on a rigorous defense:

From the time OMSJ Director Clark Baker received word of the case, USAF officials resisted OMSJ’s efforts to assist.  From August 30th through January 7th 2011, Whiteman Air Force Base (AFB) Area Defense Command (ADC) showed little interest in defending their client from charges that threatened to end Gutierrez’ honorable 20-year career and send him to Fort Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary for life. 

However, Mr. Baker provides an email from defense counsel which clearly states that this is a flat out lie:

“I appreciate your time, but at this time, based on defense decision and informed client consent, we will not be needing your services.”

The email from Captain Aaron Mannes states that it was “based on defense decision and informed client consent…”

According to Clark Baker’s own words, it seems as if the defense counsel was well aware of Clark Baker’s lack of credibility and crack pot theories:

Gutierrez said that USAF Major James Dorman and Capt. Aaron Maness told him that Baker and OMSJ were frauds and that both attorneys would quit if Gutierrez accepted Baker’s assistance. 
The defense attorney, Capt. Mannes, did not emphasize Baker’s strategy that HIV is not pathogenic, but instead utilized the facts of real HIV science and transmission.  Because the defense counsel used logic, facts and science, Baker is claiming incompetence.  It is also important to note that the defense attorney also utilized current case laws as well as a constitutional argument to try and get many of the counts dismissed.
During opening statements, defense attorney Capt. Aaron Mannes had asked the judge to note the conduct of Gutierriez’s wife when considering the adultery charges.* Mannes also argued that having sex without disclosing one’s HIV status is not necessarily aggravated assault and urged him to consider recent science regarding HIV transmission. (emphasis mine)
When it came time for cross examinations, defense attorneys emphasized that none of the witnesses who testified had been infected with HIV and that during many of the encounters they described, Gutierrez either used a condom or did not ejaculate.
*The woman said Gutierrez’s wife also participated in the swinger lifestyle.  “She was talking about opening a bed-and-breakfast for swingers,” the woman said. “She was all for it.”
*A Wichita man who said he participated in swinger events with the couple also testified that Gutierrez flatly denied being HIV positive and that the airman’s wife pushed him into having sex with others. (emphasis mine)
Military judge Lt. Col. William Muldoon rejected a defense attorney’s request to dismiss the aggravated assault charges as unconstitutional because similar case law on aggravated assault in effect says his client can’t ever have sex again.
It looks to me like the defense counsel utilized every legal strategy available and did indeed put on a rigorous defense.  It will be interesting to see if Mr. Baker’s assertion that defense counsels’ refusal to accept Mr. Baker’s help is legal justification for a new trial.  However, Mr. Baker could not simply write a post discussing the legal aspects of the trial.  For fun I will also dissect another of Mr. Baker’s crazy theories.
Obfuscation Vaccination

It is very interesting to note that Mr. Baker has a very hard time staying on point, which always leads to compounding lies.  This tactic always gets him into deep trouble which further destroys his credibility.  Take for instance Mr. Baker’s discussion of Vaccinations in this post.  It would have been much more credible for Mr. Baker to simply state that Sgt Gutierrez had received multiple vaccinations before his HIV test which caused a false positive result.  This overused canard of HIV denial would have been incredibly dubious in and of itself to any normal person. But Mr. Baker could not help himself.  Let’s break this down, shall we?  Baker writes:

“…he was subjected to more than 40 experimental vaccinations for anthrax, hepatitis, influenza, meningitis, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pneumonia, tuberculosis, tetanus, diphtheria, typhoid and yellow fever…”
The most egregious part of this statement is the one word “experimental”.  Perhaps if Mr. Baker had only thrown in a couple of scary sounding and less well known vaccines like Anthrax, Typhoid and Yellow Fever (boo!) he could have gotten away with it.  But since even these vaccines are well established (1970, 1937 and 1896 respectively) he would have needed to really lay into the scary aspect and foregone the word experimental completely.  Because Mr. Baker does not consider the logic of his lies, he failed as usual.
Baker runs headlong into the next bit of bullshit:
 Although none of these disease (sic) kill or injure more than a few dozen Americans in any given year, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports that thousands of Americans are injured or killed every year by the vaccinations that are marketed to fight these diseases. (Terrible sentence fragment is all Baker.)
 One look at the link Baker provided exposes his lies:  First look at Adverse Events:
Since 1990, VAERS has received over 200,000 reports, most of which describe mild side effects such as fever. Very rarely, people experience serious adverse events following immunization. By monitoring such events, VAERS helps to identify any important new safety concerns and thereby assists in ensuring that the benefits of vaccines continue to be far greater than the risks.  Many different types of adverse events occur after vaccination.About 85-90% of the reports describe mild adverse events such as fever, local reactions, and episodes of crying or mild irritability. The remaining reports reflect serious adverse events involving life-threatening conditions, hospitalization, permanent disability, or death, which may or may not have been caused by a vaccine. (all emphasis mine)
 Do I really need to expose the lie “none of these disease kill or injure more than a few dozen Americans in any given year”. 

2010: 3 short months in New York and New Jersey alone, 1,000 people suffered from Mumps.

2009: New Hepatitis A Cases: 1,987
2009: New Hepatitis B Cases: 3,405
2007: Mortality from Viral Hepatitis: 7,407
 I could go on, but why?  Mr. Baker’s claim, “none of these disease (sic) kill or injure more than a few dozen Americans in any given year”, is obviously complete and utter nonsense. 

Clark Baker: Inspiration to Humanitarians Everywhere

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.

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:  

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.

Clark Baker Caught In Another Lie

The recent article by Zoe Corbyn regarding Duesberg’s overworked   re-worked paper that was published in a small time Italian peer reviewed publication had quite the busy comment section.   At least it did until the moderators at Nature saw the libel, slander and defamation posted there mostly by Clark Baker and made the smart decision to shut down the comments.  This of course has Mr. Baker crying foul.  Fortunately for us, Mr. Baker is such an ego-maniacal gas bag that he saved some of his comments and posted them for us at his OMSJ site.  Although at second glance, I guess even Mr. Baker saw the potential lawsuits he had made for himself and left off the many comments where he directly called people meth addicts, meth trannies and other worse, pointless and unsubstantiated lies.

However, because Mr. Baker’s ego is so overblown, he left at least one very big lie AND he provided a link to prove that it was a lie:

From: []

Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:33 AM


Subject: [Nature News] Your post has been hidden

Dear Clark Baker,

The following post you wrote on the Nature News website has been hidden by the moderator in accordance with our terms and conditions.

I’m usually too busy preparing cases and questioning HIV experts like Joan Duwve MD MPH to waste time with blogs like this. (snip)
However, when you click the link you will find a court document that is indeed a deposition of this HIV expert.  Unfortunately, it clearly states that the questions were not only prepared by Attorney Barron Coleman, but were also asked by Attorney Barron Coleman.   In other words, Mr. Baker is clearly lying.  He had absolutely nothing to do with the document to which he linked.
Why in the world would Mr. Baker try to take credit for this document and then link to said document, proving he is lying and seal his fate?  This is just one more example of Mr. Baker’s complete lack of credibility and possibly his tenuous grasp on reality.

Part 2: Debunking Clark Baker’s “Analysis” of Flow Cytometry

I was really not looking forward to tackling part 2 of Mr. Baker’s nonsense.  It really is so astoundingly stupid.  At the same time, I must admit to deriving much pleasure from pointing out just how stupid Mr. Baker is.  Mr. Baker’s stated goal:“OMSJ began an investigation into the reliability and use of flow cytometry as it applies to HIV and AIDS.”

First of all, I must ask: why does Mr. Baker refer to OMSJ as an entity separate from himself?  He is the only person in the entire organization as proven by his Non Profit IRS Form 990.  Such an egomaniacal narcissist!   Mr. Baker also tries to establish that HIV is not responsible for depleting CD4 cells by quoting Anthony Fauci, a man whom Mr. Baker has accused numerous times of being a lying fraud and in the pocket of “Big Pharma”.  Why would Mr. Baker try to prove a point by quoting a man whom he considers to be completely without integrity?  Mr. Baker goes on to say:

“A careful reading of the medical and scientific journals establishes little correlation between CD4 cells and HIV.”

Of course Mr. Baker does not bother to present even one specific study to back up his claim.  And the few studies he does cite throughout his “analysis” use Flow Cytometry.   How can Mr. Baker state that these studies establishanything by using a technology he concludes to be “wholly unreliable”?   Furthermore, this is just blatantly false. There have been several large studies proving a correlation between CD4 count and HIV, along with viral load, another technology Mr. Baker briefly disparages.

The MACS or Multi Center AIDS Cohort Study as stated by Dr. Nick Bennett:

It’s well known (at least among those who bother to read and understand the literature) that those people with higher viral loads tend to progress faster, as was shown by John Mellors back in the mid 1990s using the large Multicenter AIDS cohort study (MACS).

Another even bigger study, Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection validated the findings of MACS.  Again, Dr. Bennett:

This study took things one step further. They replicated the original findings of Mellors by showing again that viral load roughly predicted how fast AIDS occurred in another large cohort composed of people from 3 separate study sites. For example, in this new paper people with viral loads less than 500 had an average loss of CD4 cells of 20 per year whereas those with viral loads over 40,000 had an average loss of 78 a year (with a smooth change for values inbetween). Basically this data proved that viral load was a reasonable predictor of rate of progression! They compared this analysis with the original MACS cohort and it looks practically identical!

NOTE: This link is to Orac at Respectful Insolence so that you can read his explanation, and link to Dr. Bennett’s and Tara Smith’s explanations all in one place.

Another interesting thing about the second study listed above (Predictive Value…) is that Mr. Baker used it as one of the only studies presented to specifically back up one of his claims.  Read slowly as these two sentences only make sense to Mr. Baker:

 Some researchers have identified numerous subsets of CD4 cells, while others have found that low T-cell numbers are routinely found among life insurance applicants and African populations.  Others have found viral load and flow cytometry equally dubious

My brain hurts!  Sorry, I just had to say that.  Why do I put myself thru this torture?

No researchers found low T-cell numbers among life insurance applicants.  What is happening is that Life Insurance Companies, (which are bigger rip off artists than Pharmaceutical Companies) are denying coverage to people with CD4 counts below 500 as they see them as unhealthy, which HIV Research has never claimed.  Whether that’s a sound business decision or not has nothing to do with researchers routinely finding low T-cell numbers among insurance applicants.  And the specific link to the study above in the second sentence is just Mr. Baker’s magical thinking as you can see from Dr. Bennett’s explanation.  Mr. Baker is simply performing magic even Harry Potter could not perform.

Next Mr. Baker resorts to completely contradicting himself.  First he states that every government entity, including the CDC, has failed standardization in relation to CD4 testing:

“HHS, CDC, NIH and FDA have failed to produce meaningful guidelines for quality control, quality assurance or quality of test reagents.”

Then the complete contradiction:

In response to that need, guidelines addressing aspects of the CD4+T lymphocyte testing process – in particular, quality control, quality assurance, and consistency of reagents for  immunophenotyping of lymphocytes were developed.  (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)/AIDS Clinical Trial Group: Guidelines for hematologic and low cytometric analysis of ACTG specimens, 1992).

To assure the accuracy and reliability of CD4+T cell test results obtained within individual laboratories and to attempt to assure comparability of results between laboratories, the CDC established a list of standard methods for performing the test, as well as guidelines for quality control and quality assurance.  The CDC’s recommendations for flow cytometry apply to laboratory safety, specimen collection, specimen transport, maintenance of specimen integrity, specimen processing, flow cytometer quality control, sample analyses, data analysis, data storage, data reporting and quality assurance.

Then, as a further contradiction, Mr. Baker lists many steps as set out by the CDC.  Mr. Baker erroneously concludes that it will surely lead to screwed up results:

As can be seen, there are multiple steps in this process, any of which that if violated can lead to a substantial alteration in the test results:

Do I really need to list all the difficult things in life that involve many complex steps that do not necessarily lead to errors?

Let’s also not forget that these people are highly educated, highly trained and highly experienced.  These people are professionals.  Mr. Baker may be trying to be logical, but just because something is possible, does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean it is probable.

Mr. Baker also tries to use the fact that there have been recalls relating to Flow Cytometry as further evidence that it is “wholly unreliable”:

“Since 2004, the FDA has issued 66 recalls of flow cytometry products, devices, components and computer software.”

But isn’t this really further evidence of the commitment by the FDA to ensure the quality of this technology?  Of course it is.  And the fact that companies not only comply, but also improve their product to avoid such a costly problem is also evidence of their commitment to continued quality improvement.

The most fun I have had is in looking closely at one of the analogies Mr. Baker uses to compare to Flow Cytometry; Breathalyzers!  Yes, Mr. Baker compares one very complex technology to one relatively simple technology.  (He also used RADAR guns as comparison.  But because the technology is so simple and the training required operating it is soooooooooo ridiculously simple, I thought it would be way to easy of a target for me.  Just how hard can it be to Point and Shoot, especially for a cop?)

Because Mr. Baker tried to show that there were so many variables that could affect results using Flow Cytometry, I thought I would look into some studies showing how “wholly unreliable” Breathalyzers can be.  Just a simple Wikipedia search showed many ways breathalyzers can give faulty and variable results.  Just running up a flight of stairs can alter results by 11-14%, hyperventilation lowers results by 32% and even holding your breath can increase results by 28%.   How many “perps” run from the cops and then get a breathalyzer test?  What is worse is that many breath analysis machines use hematocrit as part of the algorithm (another term Mr. Baker disparaged in his “analysis” of FC).  The breath machines assume a hematocrit of 47% for an accurate reading but the normal range for a man is 42-52% while for a woman is 37-47%.  So that right there could falsely elevate the readings. But the worst part is that research indicates that BREATH tests can vary by 15% from actual BLOOD concentration!  And an estimated 23% of individuals tested with have a BAC higher than their true BAC!  Also, taking a look at Recalls of Breathalyzers found a plethora of recallls!

In other words, Mr. Baker, you might want to choose your analogies and comparisons a bit more carefully.

Or better yet, Mr. Baker, just stick to what you know.  I’m sorry that might be limiting for you.