Monthly Archives: May 2014

ReThinking AIDS Members Outraged by Civil Discourse

All of civility depends on being able to contain the rage of individuals. Joshua Lederberg

It was around 2008 when I first discovered there were people who did not trust the science of HIV. At that time there was a great amount of discussion (and fighting) between the two sides. There were many different blogs and websites advocating their particular views. Much of it was born from a feeling of need by the “orthodox” to counter what they (we) considered to be misunderstanding and untruths being perpetuated by the dissidents. There were comment threads all across the internet with both sides name calling and spewing hate. Nothing was accomplished. How could anything get accomplished when neither side tried to get to know their adversary or even acknowledge their humanness?

There were a few half-hearted attempts for civil discussion and a couple of pseudo-debates. When I wrote my first blog, Dissidents 4 Dumbees, I even tried to get the person who most reviled me to agree to a monthly Point/Counter-Point type of debate. He refused. But that was then and with time my adversary and I began a wary, barely-trusting-the-other attempt to communicate; a civil discourse if you will. His name is Jonathan Barnett and we started about two years ago with emails, worked up to phone calls and just a few weeks ago I met him at his home in Kansas City, MO. Jonathan videotaped our meeting and posted it to his website.

Two years ago when we first started talking like mature adults we found out some surprising things. For instance Jonathan was blown away when I told him that I went off my meds for almost a year. At the time I had changed my insurance to a Health Savings Account. I misunderstood how it worked and found that I would have to pay $3,000 out of pocket. I revolted against Big Insurance and Big Pharma and took a Drug Holiday. It went against every preconceived idea Jonathan had about me as being a staunch “drug pusher”.

Jonathan knew he would catch some hell from other dissidents for meeting with me. But Jonathan, as I have come to find, is someone who is not entrenched in a mind-set (as I had previously assumed) and is definitely not afraid to buck the system. Jonathan had been on and off ARVs several times and for years meticulously detailed his CD4 and Viral Load results at his website, Resistance Is Fruitful. That alone was heresy to many dissidents. But for the most part, Jonathan was still a member in strong standing. Then he started questioning the main dissident group, ReThinking AIDS.  He questioned them privately about their leadership, lack of “affecteds” on their board as well as where all their money had gone. When he got no results, Jonathan started questioning them publicly. But the final straw may be his meeting with me.

Soon after the dissident community saw the video, the comment thread at ReThinking AIDS facebook page went haywire. Some of it has been passive-aggressive such as Elizabeth Ely un-friending Jonathan. Much of it has been vicious and directed at me.  Elizabeth Ely crossed way over the defamation line when she accused me of a most heinous act:

  • Elizabeth Ely Actually, I heard that JTD phone-called Christine Maggiore nearly every day to tell her that he thought she killed her own child.
    1 hr · Like

Not only is it a bald faced lie, it is also hearsay. Either Ms. Ely pulled that out of thin air or she heard it from someone as she claimed. If she did hear it from someone else, why not name the source? That comment should never have been made public in the first place. If the moderators at RA had any decency or integrity they would not have allowed that comment to remain on the site.

In keeping with the success of my recent civil discourse with Jonathan, I requested membership to RA facebook page so that I could discuss this atrocious defamation like mature grownups. Naturally my request was denied.  Why would they allow a bit of truth into their vacuum of negativity and lies? It seems to me they enjoy the feeling of being shunned by the general public and playing the victim. Unfortunately it shows just how little respect they have for anyone who does not ascribe to their beliefs and that it is OK to say whatever they want with no regard for facts, proof or the law.

 I know you must be asking: Aside from their attacks on me and Jonathan what did they have to say about the video? What did they think about two former rivals coming together in show of respect and civil dialogue? Unfortunately it seems that they missed the point entirely.

Jonathan gets shit from fellow dissidents for not believing CD4 counts and Viral Loads are complete hogwash and for occasionally taking low dose ARVs. He gets pushed to the side and ignored when he questions the dissident authority. And when he fraternizes with the enemy he is all but thrown out with the trash. But when I tell others who believe in the science of HIV that I quit my meds for a year or that I am going to KC to meet with a dissident, they respect my decision, wish me well and that’s that. I am not chastised. My dignity is not called into question. I am not “unfriended”.

The real question has to be: Why do the dissidents have so much rage and disdain for fellow dissidents who do not fall into line? Until the rage of the individual is contained and not laser focused at those who do not believe as we do, I guess civility will never truly be reached.

Missing In Action: OSMJ; Office of Medical & Scientific Justice; HIV Innocence Group

It may be about time to put Clark Baker’s face on a milk carton. Baker’s HIV Innocence Group has been strangely quiet and Baker has not posted any new “wins” at his website since November of 2013.  Almost 7 months without any activity is suspicious, especially because Baker has posted as many as 5 case “wins” per month in the past. I have no way of knowing what is going on, but I can make an educated guess: I would bet money that he is still working on cases but not advertising it so that it appears to the Federal Court in Texas that my little ol’ website has damaged his “business”. I base this guess on the fact that Baker has said as much and more in papers submitted in the lawsuit. I can not go into detail until the case is over. But I can say that in Baker’s original suit he claimed that I have cost him $100K. That already outrageous figure changed abruptly in his First Amended Complaint about two months later to a cool One Million $$!

I have not updated this site in about a month because I have been really busy with some exciting changes in my life. However, I will soon be posting more about the AIDS Dissidents and their plans to use Electron Microscopy. There is a mysterious research paper that is soon to be published as well as a supposed State of the Art EM facility in Houston, Texas. It should be a hoot!

Attorney #5 Confirms Clark Baker Being Untruthful

This has become a landslide of attorneys confirming that Mr. Baker was not involved in cases he claims to have been successful. At this point Mr. Baker should just delete his websites and crawl away and hide from sheer humiliation and embarrassment. I will say no more here. The email speaks for itself. I will just paste the email from attorney Stancil regarding the Darren Garcia Case which is listed as “win” #55 at Baker’s site.

From: JStancil@redacted
To: my email address redacted
Subject: Re: Darren Garcia – Denver CO Case: #12CR00384
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 21:53:41 +0000

Hi Todd,
The prosecutors decision was based on many factors- none of which were associated with Mr. Baker ‘s offer to assist in the case. (emphasis mine) We never ended up taking him up on his offer (emphasis mine) and my email was just me telling him we were no longer concerned with the prostitution with Aids charge. 

4th Attorney Confirms Clark Baker Not Involved In Case…and Worse

This is unbelievable. A fourth attorney has confirmed that Mr. Baker was not involved in a case listed as a “win” at his site. (3 times is a pattern. 4 times is just sad.)
That is not the worst of it. Defense Attorney Mason did not give Baker consent to post anything about the case and was not aware that Baker had done so until I contacted him. Of course why would the attorney think that Baker would be posting information about a case that Baker was not involved with?
NOTE: Complete email from attorney Mason posted below. I will not be posting the name of the defendant out of respect for that person as well as respect for attorney Mason. I will only say it was listed as “win” #35 at Baker’s site. I have asked attorney Mason to contact Mr. Baker and request he remove any mention of the case from his site. In the possibility that Mr. Baker does the honorable thing and removes the case, I have saved screen shots for posterity.   

The email from Attorney Mason also confirms what I have suspected from my research and prior correspondence with other attorneys: Baker’s Modus Operandi. 
1. Baker reaches out to an attorney with a client accused of an HIV related crime.
2. Defense attorney politely listens to Baker’s “novel and unique” theories, as attorney Galen referred to them in the Daniel Allen Case.
3. Baker sends information to attorney whether or not the info was requested.
4. Charges are dropped or plea deal reached for any reason.
5. Baker gets an email from the attorney stating charges were dropped or plea deal reached.
6. Baker lists the case as “win” without confirming if he actually had any input in the resolution of the case.
This is not just speculation. The emails from attorneys Galen and Mason prove this outright. An email from attorney Donna Stamps in the Atha Case prove that HIV had nothing to do with the plea bargain, and yet Baker still lists that case as a win:
We were able to negotiate a plea bargain, however, I have to inform
you that it never came down to the situation where the HIV became an issue as far as the plea bargain is concerned. The information that you supplied me would have been very helpful if we had to try the case.
 (emphasis mine)
In addition, there are two other cases in which the attorneys confirm Mr. Baker was not involved despite Baker listing those cases as wins: Case of Robert Uballe and Case ofWilliam Trout.
This goes beyond deception. It is completely illogical. Maybe it is also the same reasoning that allows Mr. Baker to claim he has arrested so many people when he was with the LAPD:
Scenario: Another cop cracks the case and chases the perp right to where Baker is eating a donut. The perp slips in the jelly that oozed out from the bottom of Baker’s donut. Baker puts the cuffs on the perp and claims he made the arrest. 
Email from Attorney Mason:
From: dmason@redacted

To: my email redacted
Subject: Re: Case of: redacted
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 02:14:59 +0000


I can’t say much due to attorney client confidentiality.  I was unaware of the posting of a message to his site.  I am pleased that the only information posted is publicly available information as I never gave him any confidential information about the case.
He contacted me to assist in my client’s case and I can say that I informed him that the case was dismissed so that he did not continue to try to work on the case.  He did send me sample affidavits and work product related to his arguments.  Ultimately, I did not utilize his services.
Thank you for reaching out to me and I wish you the best in this difficult and challenging area of law.
I am most disheartened that anything about my client continues to be posted online as that only hurts her and is not beneficial to anyone.