For the first several years that the HIV Innocence Group was operating, their core strategy, as I have discussed before, was to attack the reliability of ELISA and Western Blot tests. Mr. Baker claims these tests can not accurately diagnose HIV infection because they test for antibodies to HIV and not the virus itself. Baker bases this “winning strategy” on his assertion that “HIV research is comprised largely of incoherent gibberish…” (inexplicably the link is to the HIV Sequence Database for some strange reason) and “evidence that is built on scientific misconduct (of Robert Gallo).” It is also worthy to note that Baker consistently ignores the fact that this evidence was also supplied by Luc Montagnier who not only won the Nobel Prize, but also was never charged with any wrongdoing whatsoever. In addition, the “scientific misconduct” had nothing to do with the accuracy nor the validity of Gallo’s work. It was concluded that Gallo tried to downplay the role of the French in the discovery of HIV and give himself more credit.
NOTE: Some hyperlinks are not working. They are all to Baker’s sites. Is this a coincidence? You can see the url address, however, please google the urls and you will find the exact reference.
Now it seems Mr. Baker has decided that Electron Microscopy (EM) is the “gold standard” and if HIV is not found in peripheral blood via EM then the defendant cannot possibly be infected. In essence, Mr. Baker is doing what he says real doctors can not do with ELISA and WB: He is diagnosing the defendant. By what authority does Mr. Baker make this pronouncement regarding EM being the “gold standard”? That’s easy:
“OMSJ experts contend that, as the ‘gold standard,’ EM is the only reliable method that can identify the presence of the virus.”
Unfortunately Mr. Baker does not expressly state who these “experts” are. I will introduce you to said “experts” in a moment, but for now it is necessary to provide the next paragraph where Mr. Baker hypocritically contradicts himself:
“OMSJ also contends that GBA’s military doctors and lab failed to abide by the legal FDA instructions, warnings and limitations that accompany serological (blood serum) HIV tests.”
Here Baker is holding the FDA up as an authority that should be heeded. However, Mr. Baker normally displays great derision and disdain for the FDA (as well as the NIH, CDC and any other agency that is corrupted by funding from Big Pharma or in cahoots with Big Pharma). But when it suits his needs, Baker has no issue with these authoritative bodies as is evidenced by this post about the supposed problems with ELISA and WB.
Mr. Baker contradicts himself again in a different post at his site where he once again proclaims EM to be the “gold standard”:
“There is only one gold-standard tool used for observing HIV — an electron microscope — but EM is completely off-limits to the public and has never been approved by the FDA to test for HIV.”
Baker admits that EM is not approved by the FDA, but this is OK because “OMSJ experts” have usurped the authority of the FDA in this instance. The same authority above that Baker chastises GBA’s military doctors for failing to abide. That seems to be Baker’s modus operandi; switching allegiance when it suits his agenda. (Relevant Side Note: Many times Baker has accused Seth Kalichman of being a “Pharma Slut” corrupted by grant money, among many other horrible accusations. But that does not stop Baker from using a Peer Reviewed article from AIDS and Behavior, the publication for which Dr. Kalichman is the editor, and using the article in an authoritative manner.)
“Criminal HIV statutes were passed to prosecute HIV-positive persons who knowingly expose others to the alleged virus through sexual activity.”
The hyper-link in the sentence takes the reader to the article from AIDS and Behavior. Why would Baker submit an article as an authority on a subject from a publication edited by a man whom Baker not only does not respect, but also seems to downright loathe? It could have something to do with character, integrity and credibility. But that is for you, dear reader, to decide for yourself.
But I digress. Let’s get back to Baker’s proclamation of EM as the “gold standard tool for observing HIV”. Baker uses the word “observe” to mean visualize. The fact that Mr. Baker and his “experts” do not believe in anything they can not visualize or see with their own eyes, shows just how ignorant they are of science (and reality). But this clearly goes way beyond what they are saying. Who knows if Baker and his “experts” truly believe this, but they are clearly manipulating a legitimate technology to sew Reasonable Doubt. It would be like performing a Chest X-Ray to see if a patient has a broken leg. It is a completely inappropriate and misuse of an important technology. Also, not even a legitimate expert can just decide what is the “gold standard” for testing. It would require experiments conclusively confirming such a hypothesis published in Peer Reviewed literature. Then confirmation would be required by other scientists who duplicate said experiments and come up with the same results. Then that would need to published in Peer Reviewed literature. Gold Standards require the Scientific Method not the legal system.
As for OMSJ “experts”, you can read Dr. Sheila Peel’s affidavit for a concise explanation of why they are not acceptable Expert Witnesses/Consultants. It is more than adequate as well to show why they do not have the requisite education, training nor experience to bestow EM as the “gold standard” for anything.
1. Dr. Nancy Banks MD – “Dr. Banks CV demonstrates absolutely no documented expertise or knowledge of serological or molecular HIV test methodologies, interpretation of HIV test results, diagnosis of HIV, nor documented expertise in the care and treatment of individuals infected with HIV.”
2. Dr. David Rasnick – “Has no documented expertise or knowledge of HIV test technologies.” She goes on to destroy his credibility by pointing out his perjury in his own affidavit claiming to be a visiting scholar at Berkley which the University denied as well as Rasnicks illegal and unethical clinical trials in South Africa with the Rath Foundation.
3. Dr. Rodney Richards – “He does not have current (since 1995) specific documented expertise in the development, application, or interpretation of serological and molecular HIV test methodologies and/or interpretation of HIV test results.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I will soon post a follow up detailing the military case that exposed the misuse of the EM Facility and possible manipulation of the actual EM expert, Gregory Hendricks.